[0:46] Mr. Walker, the official timekeeper

[0:47] tells me it's 5:30. We're going to get

[0:50] started.

[0:53] This is the Thursday, July 30th, 2026

[0:56] meeting of the Floyd May Board of

[0:58] Adjustment.

[1:03] Come to order, and the first thing we

[1:05] have to do is take a look at the minutes

[1:07] from our meeting of May 28th, 2026.

[1:11] Uh did everybody on the board get a copy

[1:14] of the those minutes?

[1:15] >> Yes.

[1:16] >> I I myself didn't see any problems or

[1:18] omissions. Did anybody see any problems

[1:20] or omissions?

[1:22] I'll make a motion that we accept the

[1:24] May 28th, 2026

[1:26] meeting meeting minutes. Is there a

[1:29] second?

[1:30] Mr. Shields seconds. All in favor of

[1:33] accepting those minutes as distributed

[1:35] by Ms. Miller, say aye.

[1:37] It's unanimous.

[1:39] So, that's taken care of.

[1:41] Um

[1:43] I don't have any

[1:45] new business to take up before we get

[1:47] into um the variance hearing we're going

[1:49] to do. Does any board member have any

[1:51] new business you want to

[1:53] bring up?

[1:54] >> No.

[1:55] >> Okay.

[1:55] All right. we'll move on then.

[2:00] We have a variance

[2:03] application.

[2:05] It's variance number 2026-03.

[2:09] The applicants are Fred and Sandy

[2:11] Cerretti.

[2:12] And Mr. Cerretti introduced himself to

[2:15] me as Is Miss Sandy Cerretti here?

[2:18] >> No, she is not.

[2:19] >> She is not. Okay. All right.

[2:21] Um

[2:22] the location of the property that we're

[2:25] going to be talking about is 369

[2:28] Tory Acres Circle here in Blowing Rock,

[2:31] North Carolina.

[2:34] And

[2:36] the first thing we need to do is find

[2:37] out if any board member

[2:40] uh has any conflict of interest in this

[2:42] case.

[2:43] Um

[2:45] and I have a little list here of things

[2:47] that we have to address.

[2:50] Um

[2:51] the board cannot Board members cannot

[2:53] discuss this case with anybody prior to

[2:56] this hearing here tonight.

[2:58] Uh has anybody had has That's called ex

[3:01] parte communications. Has anybody on the

[3:03] board had ex parte communications,

[3:05] talked to anybody about this case prior

[3:08] to this evening? I haven't. Everyone

[3:10] says no.

[3:12] A member must not have a fixed opinion

[3:14] prior to this hearing as to whether this

[3:16] particular variance should or should not

[3:18] be granted.

[3:19] And should not be biased. Does anybody

[3:21] have a fixed opinion about this before

[3:23] we even start?

[3:25] No.

[3:26] I hear no from everyone.

[3:28] A member must not have a fixed opinion

[3:30] as to whether all variances in general

[3:32] should or should not be granted. Should

[3:34] not be biased one way or the other. Does

[3:36] anybody have such a bias?

[3:38] >> No.

[3:40] from me. No from everybody.

[3:43] A member must not participate in this

[3:44] case if the member has any close,

[3:47] familiar, familial, business, or other a

[3:50] relationship with a person involved in

[3:52] this case. Does anybody have a close

[3:54] relationship with anyone involved in uh

[3:58] this variance application having to do

[4:01] with 369 Towne Acres Circle? Anybody?

[4:05] Everyone says no.

[4:08] And a member must not have any financial

[4:10] not financial interest in the outcome of

[4:12] this case. Does anyone have any

[4:14] financial interest in the outcome of

[4:16] this case? And we all say no.

[4:22] » [snorts]

[4:24] >> We, board members,

[4:26] are not allowed to discuss this case

[4:29] prior to tonight. The ex parte

[4:30] conversations I just mentioned. But

[4:33] we're allowed to drive by the property

[4:35] in question and look at it, give it a

[4:37] good eyeball.

[4:38] Um

[4:40] and we're allowed to do that just so we

[4:41] don't stop

[4:43] and get into some sort of conversation.

[4:45] We just look at it and keep going.

[4:47] I know I did. Did any of the board

[4:49] members go by 369 Towne Acres Circle?

[4:52] Yes.

[4:53] I have. Yes, I did.

[4:55] Everybody but Mr. McGill. You did not.

[4:57] >> I read my paper.

[5:00] >> Mr. Schiller and Mr. McGill did not go

[5:02] by the property.

[5:03] >> I read all the material we were given

[5:05] and obeyed thoroughly.

[5:06] >> Okay.

[5:08] Uh

[5:09] the other three of us

[5:10] did go by the property.

[5:17] Um is there anyone other than the town

[5:20] representative

[5:21] and the variance applicant

[5:24] who considers himself to be a party to

[5:26] this case?

[5:27] Um wants to come into this case as a

[5:30] party and participate fully because they

[5:32] feel like

[5:33] uh

[5:34] the outcome of this case one way or

[5:35] another would may affect them.

[5:38] Anyone here that feels like he is a

[5:40] party to this case?

[5:43] And I hear nothing.

[5:46] The minutes of this meeting going going

[5:48] to be kept by Miss Taylor Miller over

[5:51] here. She is a town employee. She

[5:53] actually works in the planning and

[5:56] inspections office.

[5:58] Uh

[5:59] Mr. Serrati, do you have any objection

[6:01] to Miss Taylor keeping the minutes?

[6:03] >> No, I do not.

[6:04] >> Okay.

[6:05] And uh

[6:07] Mr. Johnson, do you have any objections?

[6:10] >> I do not.

[6:11] >> Miller keeping the minutes. Very good.

[6:23] The North Carolina Court of Appeals has

[6:25] said on a number of occasions that we

[6:26] are supposed to let everybody here know

[6:30] what procedures we will use.

[6:32] And they have given us

[6:34] uh

[6:35] a suggested spiel

[6:37] to take care of that.

[6:40] This hearing is a quasi-judicial

[6:42] hearing. It is conducted according to

[6:44] the rules and laws laws pertaining to

[6:45] quasi-judicial hearings. It will have

[6:48] all of the essential elements of a fair

[6:50] trial.

[6:52] Parties will have the opportunity to

[6:54] give evidence, cross-examine witnesses,

[6:56] inspect documents, and testimony shall

[6:59] be under oath.

[7:00] The board's findings will be based upon

[7:03] substantial, material, and competent

[7:06] evidence. And if anybody here wants a

[7:08] definition of substantial or material or

[7:11] competent, say so now and I'll read it.

[7:14] Otherwise, we'll move on.

[7:30] Um

[7:31] Mr. Johnson, I asked

[7:34] Thomas to put two sheets

[7:37] into the uh

[7:38] projector up there,

[7:40] both of them showing what's required

[7:42] for a variance.

[7:44] And there's the first one. That is the

[7:46] state statute.

[7:49] It shows what is required to get

[7:51] a variance.

[7:53] Um there's a state statute on this.

[7:56] It's a North Carolina General Statute

[7:58] 160D-705.

[8:01] It gives the requirements

[8:03] for obtaining a variance. It's the law

[8:06] we are to follow, the law we are to

[8:08] apply to the facts

[8:10] that come out in this hearing.

[8:12] So, that's the state statute.

[8:14] If you would turn to the Blowing Rock

[8:16] ordinance.

[8:29] That's the state statute.

[8:31] >> Did you have a sheet?

[8:32] >> Yeah, I gave it to him.

[8:35] Just scroll down. Scroll down.

[8:40] There we go.

[8:41] >> Can you scroll down some more?

[8:42] >> Um Blowing Rock, the town

[8:45] um wrote its own ordinance.

[8:48] The town's ordinance has to um comply

[8:51] with the state statute. The state trumps

[8:54] cities and towns. And it does. It's

[8:56] virtually um

[8:58] written identically showing the what we

[9:00] call the factors, the four factors

[9:02] that have to be met

[9:05] before a variance can be granted.

[9:08] Uh Blowing Rock added a few little

[9:10] things, explanatory things,

[9:13] like the last sentence in factor D.

[9:17] Reads "The

[9:20] requested variance is consistent with

[9:22] the spirit, purpose, and intent of the

[9:23] regulations, such that public safety is

[9:26] secured and substantial justice

[9:29] achieved."

[9:31] That's what the state statute says.

[9:33] Blowing Rock went on and added this.

[9:35] They say, "Substantial justice is not

[9:37] achieved when granting the variance

[9:39] would be injurious to the neighborhood

[9:41] or to the general welfare.

[9:43] So, let's look at the four factors

[9:46] real quick that

[9:48] the surities will need to

[9:50] prove and establish to get

[9:52] the requested variance.

[9:54] The first says unnecessary hardship will

[9:57] result from the strict application of

[10:00] the regulations. It shall not be

[10:02] necessary to demonstrate that in the

[10:04] absence of the variance

[10:05] a reasonable use can be made of the

[10:07] property.

[10:08] What is unnecessary hardship? It's not

[10:11] defined

[10:13] in the state statutes, it's not defined

[10:15] in the law in Rock,

[10:16] it's code of ordinances, and it's not

[10:19] defined in the common law judgment law

[10:21] of this state.

[10:23] The people, however, that train

[10:26] the legislatures

[10:28] this legislators

[10:30] in Raleigh and they go around the state

[10:33] and train

[10:34] town councils

[10:36] and um

[10:37] county councils

[10:39] um the UNC School of Government

[10:44] um

[10:45] they have talked about what an

[10:47] unnecessary hardship is. Their

[10:49] professors are also lawyers who

[10:51] specialize in land use and development.

[10:54] And they would say, the School of

[10:56] Government attorneys and professors

[10:58] would say it's fair for all the property

[11:00] owners in our neighborhood to suffer the

[11:02] same degree of hardship due to the

[11:04] zoning zoning rules.

[11:06] But, it would be unfair and excessive

[11:08] for the zoning rules to impact the

[11:10] property more than the other properties

[11:12] in the neighborhood due to unique

[11:15] characteristics of the property.

[11:17] That's excessive.

[11:19] Um

[11:20] Actually, the adjective unnecessary is a

[11:22] poor choice. You might think of it as

[11:24] excessive or unfair hardship.

[11:27] So, basically, what we're they're saying

[11:29] is if you've got some problem with your

[11:32] lot

[11:33] whether it's a very steep slope that

[11:35] takes up most of the lot, a stream going

[11:38] through the middle of the lot, or maybe

[11:39] you're a long

[11:41] skinny rectangular lot,

[11:43] and you just you can't do much of

[11:45] anything

[11:46] as far as reasonable building without

[11:49] getting into the setbacks or

[11:51] breaking some other

[11:53] zoning rule.

[11:55] Um

[11:57] you are your your property has unique

[11:59] circumstances such that

[12:02] you need a little help.

[12:03] Um

[12:05] but your property's got to have um

[12:08] these problems. Uh and so that needs to

[12:11] be established. That's the first thing

[12:13] that needs to be established

[12:15] to get um

[12:18] to get a variance. The second says,

[12:21] "The hardship results from conditions

[12:22] that are peculiar to the property, such

[12:25] as location, size, or topography.

[12:27] Hardships resulting from personal

[12:29] circumstances, as well as hardships

[12:32] resulting from conditions that are

[12:34] common to the neighborhood or the

[12:35] general public may not be the basis for

[12:37] granting a variance."

[12:40] And the third factor says, "The hardship

[12:42] did not result from actions taken by the

[12:44] applicant or the property owner. The act

[12:47] of purchasing property with knowledge

[12:49] that circumstances exist that may

[12:51] justify the granting of the variance

[12:54] shall not be regarded as a self-created

[12:56] hardship."

[12:58] And then the last one, D, the fourth

[13:00] one.

[13:01] Um

[13:03] I think I read earlier it says, "The

[13:04] requested variance is consistent with

[13:06] the spirit, purpose, and intent of the

[13:08] regulations such that public safety is

[13:10] secure and substantial justice

[13:13] achieved."

[13:14] And then the last is tacked on,

[13:15] "Substantial justice is not achieved or

[13:18] granting of the variance would be

[13:20] injurious to the neighborhood or to the

[13:22] general welfare."

[13:29] » Our usual routine is to swear everybody

[13:33] that's going to be testifying all at one

[13:35] time.

[13:36] So, everybody that's planning on

[13:37] testifying, please come over to Ms.

[13:39] Miller and she will swear in everybody

[13:42] at the same time.

[13:58] » [clears throat]

[14:13] » Mr. Swearingen, you're the property

[14:14] owner. I know there're going to be

[14:16] questions for you, but do you mind being

[14:18] sworn in?

[14:33] Thank you, sir.

[14:39] When someone applies for a variance, the

[14:41] Planning and Inspections Office prepares

[14:43] what's called a staff report. It's a

[14:45] type up of what their understanding is

[14:47] about

[14:48] what the applicant wants to do, and then

[14:51] includes with it

[14:53] um any drawings, pictures, um or

[14:56] materials that the applicant has

[14:58] provided to the Planning and Inspections

[15:00] Office.

[15:01] Um a copy of that staff report is sent

[15:04] to the board,

[15:05] and it's sent to

[15:07] the applicant. Mr. Swearingen, did you

[15:09] get your

[15:10] a copy of the staff report? Okay.

[15:13] That was put together by

[15:15] the town.

[15:17] Um

[15:19] and they they are a party to this case

[15:22] here, the other party to this case.

[15:25] Um

[15:26] if this was ever appealed, it would read

[15:29] um

[15:30] Fred Serrati versus the town of

[15:31] Wallerang. So,

[15:34] um

[15:38] they put it together. They are, so to

[15:39] speak, kind of your opponent here.

[15:42] Your polite opponent.

[15:44] Um

[15:45] are do you object to any part of the

[15:47] staff report that they put together? No.

[15:49] Okay.

[15:53] Board members even want to see

[15:56] the staff report.

[16:07] All right. Generally, we start with what

[16:10] the town knows about this case.

[16:13] Um

[16:15] and

[16:16] Mr. Serrati, do you mind if the town

[16:18] goes first?

[16:19] >> you go first.

[16:19] >> If you really want to go first, you can.

[16:21] That's okay. Okay. All right. So, Mr.

[16:24] Johnson, are you going to

[16:28] take care of that?

[16:29] >> Yes, sir.

[16:31] >> [clears throat]

[16:32] >> Mr. Chairman, Board, um

[16:43] staff report for variance number

[16:45] 2026-03.

[16:48] Uh

[16:49] I've finished

[16:50] Fred and Sandy Serrati. Fred is here,

[16:52] obviously.

[16:53] Uh 369 Terry Acres. It It is zoned R-15

[16:56] single-family property in reference.

[17:00] Um

[17:01] just for y'all's reference,

[17:04] this is the property in question here.

[17:08] Terry [clears throat] Acres, 369 Terry

[17:09] Acres.

[17:11] >> [snorts]

[17:11] >> Uh

[17:13] Fred and Sandy Serrati are requesting a

[17:14] setback variance from

[17:16] land Ordinance Section

[17:18] 16-12.4

[17:21] and the applicable 12-ft side setback

[17:23] along the western property line

[17:26] for the construction of an accessory

[17:27] building.

[17:28] >> [clears throat]

[17:29] >> Property is located at 369 Terry Acres

[17:31] and further identified by the Town of

[17:32] Blowing Rock PIN

[17:34] 2817-43

[17:37] -7159

[17:39] 000.

[17:41] Again, the property is owned

[17:44] uh R-15 single family.

[17:47] >> I get May I interrupt you? Are you

[17:49] reading from the same typed

[17:51] first page that we all got?

[17:52] >> Yes, sir.

[17:53] >> You're You're bouncing back and forth.

[17:54] Could you start from the top and and get

[17:57] to the end?

[17:58] >> I'll I'll start in the background. It's

[18:00] the same thing.

[18:01] >> Okay.

[18:03] >> [clears throat]

[18:03] >> So, Fred and Sandy are requesting a 2-ft

[18:06] setback variance.

[18:08] This is from the applicable 12-ft side

[18:10] setback

[18:11] along the western property line

[18:14] uh for the construction of an accessory

[18:15] building. Um

[18:17] The accessory building

[18:19] uh dimension is

[18:21] 11-ft 8-in wide

[18:23] by 13-ft 8-in long

[18:26] and is located on the western

[18:29] side of the existing house

[18:31] which is on this side here. It's to the

[18:33] western property line.

[18:35] This

[18:36] accessory building sits about right here

[18:38] in this location.

[18:43] » [clears throat]

[18:44] >> A little bit of background.

[18:46] In March 2026, Mr. Kevin Rothrock

[18:50] Town of Blowing Rock Planning Director

[18:53] and

[18:53] >> [clears throat]

[18:53] >> myself as Zoning Enforcement Officer

[18:55] with the town

[18:56] made a site visit to Mr. Swerid's

[18:58] property

[19:00] to assess possible work without permits.

[19:03] It was found that several areas

[19:05] of improvement have been constructed

[19:06] that would have required a permit, um

[19:08] which is

[19:10] the accessory building

[19:12] um

[19:14] that's on the property now.

[19:16] Mr. Rothrock [clears throat] contacted

[19:17] Mr. Shreddy and advised him that a

[19:19] zoning permit was required

[19:21] for the work that had been done. Um at

[19:23] the time at this time

[19:26] it was just a foundation for the

[19:27] accessory building. The building hadn't

[19:29] been built yet. So, all was there was

[19:31] the pad

[19:32] um

[19:33] the foundation for the accessory

[19:35] building.

[19:37] Mr.

[19:38] Rothrock [clears throat] informed

[19:40] him that the work for a proposed

[19:41] accessory building structure

[19:43] uh at the time would encroach into the

[19:45] side setback in place would need to be

[19:47] set at an angle and offset on the re-

[19:49] train retaining structure to meet the

[19:51] 12-ft setback.

[19:53] The structure that was there was

[19:59] determined to be a retaining wall in

[20:01] nature or retaining pad.

[20:03] So,

[20:04] a determination was made to allow

[20:08] the wall as it was, but what Mr.

[20:10] Rothrock had advised him is that at the accessory building would need to be

[20:13] turned on the pad

[20:15] to meet the 12-ft setback.

[20:17] So, the pictures you have in your packet

[20:19] are several pictures

[20:21] that Mr. Shreddy has included in the packet. They're showing

[20:27] and we can go over them showing where the property line is in relation

[20:33] to the building and where it goes

[20:34] through and where the encroachment is.

[20:38] » [clears throat]

[20:40] » Moving ahead, Mr. Shreddy applied for a

[20:42] zoning permit application

[20:44] on April 6th,

[20:46] 2026.

[20:48] And subsequently a zoning permit was

[20:50] issued on June 24th, 2026.

[20:55] While the zoning permit was issued in

[20:56] June,

[20:58] Mr. Shreddy submitted a site plan, which

[21:00] is included in your packet,

[21:02] showing the proposed building structure

[21:05] and the footprint that it would meet to

[21:06] require 12-ft setback.

[21:13] » [clears throat]

[21:14] >> During that time, Mr. Rothrock had made

[21:15] it clear that the structure would need

[21:17] to meet that side 12-ft setback.

[21:20] Mr. Sradi contacted the planning

[21:21] inspection office

[21:23] and indicated the structure had been

[21:24] built

[21:27] and the left rear corner encroached 18

[21:29] in or so into the setback.

[21:34] At that time,

[21:35] Mr. [clears throat] Johnson, myself, had

[21:36] advised Mr. Sradi

[21:38] that the building structure would need

[21:40] to be moved on the pad or removed out of

[21:42] the setback.

[21:44] On July 2nd, 2026, Mr. H.E. Weathers, I

[21:47] apologize but I don't know his first

[21:48] name,

[21:49] um met with staff in the office to

[21:51] determine options for Mr. Sradi

[21:54] and staff once again advised the

[21:55] structure would need to meet the side

[21:57] move to meet the side setback.

[22:00] And Mr. Weathers at the time decided

[22:02] that they wanted to apply for the

[22:03] variance

[22:04] to discuss and and possibly apply for

[22:06] the the variance

[22:08] to allow the encroachment.

[22:10] Be glad to go through

[22:13] any clarification on this background.

[22:16] Be glad to look at any of the photos. I

[22:18] can pull them up as well to

[22:20] clarify anything on those and and Mr.

[22:22] Sradi may be able to answer or the two

[22:24] gentlemen may be able to answer more

[22:26] on the photos that were submitted.

[22:31] » Um Mr. Sradi,

[22:33] do [clears throat] you have any

[22:34] questions for Mr. Johnson?

[22:41] » I'm sorry.

[22:42] >> Did you have any questions for Mr.

[22:43] Johnson?

[22:44] >> Well, I mean I I just want to make this

[22:47] clarification in fact. Um with respect

[22:50] to the permit and everything else, other

[22:52] than

[22:53] what we've talked about today,

[22:56] I

[22:57] when that two-page report came out, that

[22:59] was the first I knew that I could get

[23:01] her permit after the fact.

[23:03] And everything else we did out of the

[23:05] property.

[23:06] So, but I didn't think that really

[23:08] pertained to this particular

[23:12] » I tell you what, after after we finish

[23:14] with him

[23:16] then I want you, please, to present your

[23:19] case.

[23:20] >> Okay, I'm just stating I'm just I'm

[23:22] trying to be truthful here. I did not

[23:24] know that I got a

[23:25] permit and

[23:27] it's something I didn't apply for.

[23:29] >> Okay. We want to hear

[23:31] >> Okay, so that's all

[23:32] >> We want to hear your whole

[23:34] >> Yeah, that's a sidebar as far as I'm

[23:36] concerned, but I just

[23:37] want to

[23:38] >> Okay.

[23:38] >> want to be clear that

[23:41] that's the first time I heard about that

[23:43] was when you wrote up the newspaper

[23:45] report.

[23:47] » Okay, I'm I'm closing on that, but we'll

[23:49] get we'll get to you in a minute. Do you

[23:51] have any questions of Mr. Johnson?

[23:53] >> No.

[23:54] >> Okay.

[23:55] Um

[23:56] I've got a number of questions. Any

[23:57] board member have any questions of Mr.

[23:59] Johnson? Let's see, Mr. Walker showed

[24:01] up. Go ahead.

[24:03] >> Any certain pages you want me to roll

[24:06] through the staff report here?

[24:07] >> One, I don't think that I received in

[24:09] the packet but

[24:11] the permit [clears throat] application

[24:12] showing the building meeting the zone

[24:15] codes.

[24:16] I might not have we get that?

[24:18] >> Yeah, that one is in there.

[24:20] >> You mentioned that as part of the permit application

[24:23] there was a

[24:26] document presented.

[24:27] >> plan that showed the building in

[24:28] compliance with the zoning set.

[24:32] » Yeah, it should should have been right after your

[24:35] application

[24:37] in the back.

[24:38] >> Hey, you have it up on the screen in a

[24:40] minute.

[24:41] >> Yeah.

[24:52] Right, that shows it not meeting the

[24:53] setback, doesn't it?

[24:55] >> You're talking about the original permit

[24:58] Request that I wrote up in April.

[25:00] >> In April.

[25:01] >> Yeah.

[25:19] » Would you want me to make copies of

[25:21] this?

[25:21] >> I'll make

[25:25] So, this My apologies. This was in the

[25:28] zoning permit

[25:30] file that Mr. Stready had submitted.

[25:33] Um

[25:35] That's That's different than what you

[25:37] see here. Let me make a copy and you can

[25:38] take a look at that one. That That one

[25:40] was in the actual zoning with the zoning

[25:42] permit application.

[25:44] >> And um in March, what prompted the

[25:46] property visit?

[25:48] >> Um

[25:51] we received a call that they'd been

[25:53] working on. And I think Kevin may

[25:54] actually have been by the site as well.

[25:58] >> Um

[25:58] >> It was about the same time you were

[25:59] submitting the application on my

[26:00] property somewhere. So,

[26:02] I'm not sure that We We've got other

[26:03] projects that went on up in the area as

[26:05] well.

[26:07] >> Um [clears throat] and in March, I'm I'm

[26:09] just trying to

[26:10] get some more detail. In March, you said

[26:12] there were other projects going on that

[26:14] would have required permits. Is that

[26:18] beyond the [clears throat] the the shed?

[26:20] >> Um

[26:21] So, the site visit was to determine when

[26:24] he Kevin went out to determine what

[26:26] needed permits.

[26:27] And he come back to

[26:30] um

[26:31] that the accessory building needed a

[26:32] permit.

[26:33] >> Okay. And how was it determined that

[26:36] the

[26:38] foundation of the accessory building is

[26:40] a is a retaining wall?

[26:43] >> [clears throat]

[26:44] >> So, when it was built at the time, I

[26:46] mean, it were it was basically a

[26:47] retaining wall for the pad. So, we determined that that was basically a

[26:52] retaining wall.

[26:53] >> Yes.

[26:55] Cuz they they've got a they've got a

[26:57] little patio in the front.

[26:59] Um and then and you may have seen that

[27:01] when you rode by.

[27:02] >> I did.

[27:03] >> Um

[27:04] that there was some retaining walls

[27:05] associated with that as well.

[27:08] >> Doesn't a retaining wall that height

[27:10] require engineering studies?

[27:13] A lot of

[27:14] >> If it's over it's over 4 ft tall.

[27:17] >> Yes.

[27:17] >> It is over 4 ft.

[27:19] >> We we have [clears throat] to determine

[27:20] that. We'll determine if it is. And

[27:22] there may be we can have this discussion

[27:24] at uh

[27:26] through this is

[27:28] at the time Mr. Shretty was looking at a

[27:30] 10 by 12 that's what he expected of the

[27:33] building to be.

[27:34] And the actual size is

[27:36] uh

[27:37] one dimension is 13 ft. So any any

[27:39] building that's over 12 ft typically

[27:42] requires a building permit. So that's

[27:44] something we'll have to address to see

[27:45] what the exact dimension is.

[27:48] Minus some overhangs from the building

[27:50] code's standpoint they don't include

[27:51] those sometimes. So we've got to make a

[27:52] determination

[27:54] outside of this whether building permits

[27:56] are required or not. Now that will be

[27:57] determined.

[27:58] >> Okay.

[27:58] >> And just part of that discussion may be

[28:00] the retaining wall as well in the height

[28:01] there.

[28:02] >> Um

[28:10] And just timing I

[28:11] the permit was issued

[28:14] June 24th.

[28:15] >> That's correct.

[28:16] >> Was the building already built?

[28:18] >> So

[28:19] when uh

[28:21] when me and Kevin investigated just like

[28:23] you again going back the foundation

[28:25] retaining part and and the patio stuff

[28:27] had been built.

[28:28] And that's when it was advised advised

[28:30] he needed a permit which was submitted

[28:32] in you know, the first week of April.

[28:35] And there was a time lapse of June which

[28:37] on staff's part that was our our was our

[28:40] fault.

[28:41] Um

[28:43] but we still maintain what he submitted

[28:45] in his zoning application

[28:47] It 10 by 12.

[28:49] And it was going to be 12 by 12.

[28:51] So, when I sent the zoning permit then

[28:54] Mr. Schrader called right away. He was

[28:55] like, "Hey,

[28:57] it's been built.

[28:59] I'm not aware of it. I know there was a

[29:00] lapse in the zoning permit."

[29:02] >> And just Sorry to come back to this, but

[29:06] how or when will it be determined if the

[29:08] if it is a retaining wall?

[29:11] Again, I thought you had to have

[29:12] engineering studies, all kinds of stuff

[29:14] for a retaining wall of that height.

[29:16] >> If if it's over a certain height, yes,

[29:18] you do.

[29:18] >> Which I mean, it's 4 ft

[29:20] at least from my observation.

[29:23] >> I don't know how tall that wall is. I'm

[29:23] not sure.

[29:25] >> So, what happens if those

[29:27] studies were not done?

[29:28] >> If if if if it's over the height, then

[29:30] it may require him to obtain us an

[29:32] engineer to make sure it's built right.

[29:41] » Okay.

[29:42] I'm still fuzzy on the retaining wall

[29:45] and the pad.

[29:47] Tell us again what

[29:49] Tell me more about that. Just

[29:50] [clears throat] repeat repeat what you

[29:51] said about the retaining wall and the

[29:53] pad.

[29:54] >> So, when me and Mr. Rothrock was out

[29:56] there had been some some driveway work

[29:59] done. There was some some other

[30:01] retaining walls associated with it

[30:04] that included a patio out front. And we didn't know what the ultimate use was, being

[30:11] accessory building or not.

[30:14] You you can build a retaining wall. A

[30:16] retaining wall can be in the setback.

[30:18] There's just height limitations within a

[30:20] setback. And typically, they're limited

[30:22] to 6 ft in height

[30:24] for a retaining wall. So, the way it sit there, we determined that

[30:27] was a

[30:28] retaining wall. It's sitting there and

[30:30] it's retaining the foundation for that.

[30:34] It's It's no different than him having a retaining wall built that's been there

[30:39] for years, and he can go build on top of

[30:41] it

[30:42] as long as the supporting is okay.

[30:44] >> Is what you're talking about showing the

[30:45] pictures?

[30:46] >> Um it

[30:47] >> Can you pull up a picture that shows us

[31:01] » Maybe the best way we can we can zoom

[31:03] out if you need to, but the

[31:05] >> [clears throat]

[31:08] » The first time we visited out there this

[31:10] was what was there not the structure.

[31:15] So, this is what was determined as a

[31:17] retaining wall.

[31:20] Now, going back going back to any height

[31:22] requirements

[31:23] >> But now it's the foundation for the

[31:25] accessory building.

[31:26] >> It's a building sitting on a retaining

[31:27] wall is the way we determined it.

[31:32] » Okay.

[31:34] >> And so, what what Mr. Shreder was

[31:36] advised was we determined this was a

[31:37] retaining wall cuz it it's attached to

[31:40] other patios up in this area here.

[31:43] To meet the setback, you you need to

[31:45] move the building on it to meet the

[31:46] setbacks actual structure of the

[31:47] accessory building

[31:49] to meet the setback.

[31:50] >> All right.

[31:57] Could that

[32:00] retaining wall stay there and and it

[32:02] be in compliance with the zoning rules?

[32:05] >> Sure.

[32:06] If it if it's under 6 ft in the setbacks

[32:08] >> Under 6 ft.

[32:09] >> Right.

[32:10] >> But the the little house

[32:13] the shed

[32:16] it's in the

[32:17] it is in the setback.

[32:19] >> Yeah.

[32:21] So, Mr. Shreder

[32:22] submitted these.

[32:24] This will give you a little clearer idea

[32:25] of what's in it.

[32:27] >> [snorts]

[32:28] >> And then he can correct me if I'm wrong

[32:29] during his presentation.

[32:32] This is where the property line

[32:35] angles into the structure there. And

[32:37] that's you'll see on

[32:39] uh

[32:40] the site plan that's in your packet

[32:41] there.

[32:42] It is is basically that minute section

[32:45] of the corner right

[32:48] Um and I think they determined it was

[32:51] it's about 18 inches or maybe some

[32:52] discretion on the eve

[32:56] of how much that's in it, but I

[32:59] you know, you're you're looking at about

[33:00] a 2-ft It starts at nothing here

[33:03] and goes back, you know, the back part

[33:05] of the back side would be 2 ft in it or

[33:07] so, 18 to 20

[33:08] 24 inches or so.

[33:12] » Is that the eve of the building, the

[33:14] wall of the building?

[33:15] >> That That's the We we may have to ask

[33:17] the applicant. I'm I'm not sure. There may be some additional

[33:20] encroachment with the eve.

[33:27] » And your

[33:28] presentation says

[33:30] March you went up and looked at the

[33:32] property, then it says in the next

[33:33] paragraph Mr. Rothrock contacted Mr.

[33:35] Seretti and advised him that his zoning

[33:37] permit was required

[33:38] and that the building structure would

[33:41] encroach

[33:42] into the side setback and would need to

[33:44] be set at an angle. When When did that

[33:46] happen?

[33:47] >> Uh might have to let Kevin see if he's

[33:49] got his notes and see what time that

[33:51] was.

[33:51] >> It was between March and April 6th when

[33:54] the permit was

[33:55] >> Right.

[33:56] >> Okay.

[33:57] And the building had not been built

[33:59] then.

[33:59] >> As far as I know, no.

[34:02] I don't know anything

[34:03] We can enlighten you on when the actual

[34:05] building was was built. It was probably

[34:07] a process over time as well.

[34:09] >> And so and then in April

[34:11] a permit application was submitted

[34:14] showing the structure meet the 12-ft

[34:16] setback and Mr. Rothrock made it clear,

[34:20] I guess again

[34:21] that the structure would need to meet

[34:22] the setback. And that again was before

[34:24] the structure was built.

[34:26] >> Yes.

[34:27] >> Okay.

[34:33] So, you can't tell us

[34:35] if the retaining wall

[34:38] meets the zoning requirements and is

[34:40] short enough

[34:41] to be within the setback. You can't tell

[34:43] us tonight.

[34:45] >> Um

[34:47] These guys might

[34:49] They might have the highest

[34:50] >> What?

[34:51] >> There's a rule for that.

[34:52] >> What?

[34:53] >> Th- These These guys can probably

[34:54] enlighten us on what the the height of

[34:56] that is.

[34:57] There's [clears throat] a rule for that,

[34:58] but I don't know what the

[35:00] I don't know if we'd be able to tell.

[35:03] Um

[35:04] >> Mr. Johnson, why didn't you go out and

[35:05] measure it?

[35:07] >> I'm We're pretty sure it's under 6 ft

[35:09] there, though. That's why the

[35:11] determination was made it's a retaining

[35:13] wall and where it was at was fine in the

[35:14] setback.

[35:16] You can Kevin might can testify a little

[35:18] bit on what her height is over there.

[35:25] But that that height limitation is 6 ft

[35:27] in that setback.

[35:28] And I think if you look at that

[35:30] >> I think they are within the limits. We

[35:31] can ask these guys.

[35:36] » Probably pushing close to

[35:39] But we'd need to make that

[35:40] determination.

[35:42] >> And the building,

[35:44] have you gone out there and determined

[35:45] how much it encroaches in the setback?

[35:48] >> Yeah, that that's shown in these

[35:49] pictures and that's the request of 2 ft.

[35:53] But there's a there's a question on we

[35:55] can ask them how

[35:57] wide the leaves the eaves are.

[36:02] » Okay, but you haven't measured it

[36:03] yourself.

[36:05] Why not?

[36:06] >> It was never measured.

[36:08] >> You didn't want to?

[36:09] >> It was never measured. We We

[36:12] There was no They gave us the

[36:13] information right here and

[36:17] we we didn't measure it.

[36:21] » [clears throat]

[36:32] » Anybody else have any questions for Mr.

[36:34] Johnson?

[36:38] I've got a few questions

[36:40] for you.

[36:45] » I have one question.

[36:48] Mr. Johnson, the

[36:51] permit was a

[36:54] and was

[36:55] the fourth.

[36:59] When it was granted, the building had

[37:00] already been built.

[37:02] >> When the zoning permit was issued, yeah,

[37:04] it's already built.

[37:06] >> So, okay.

[37:13] » Is that all, Mr. Gibson?

[37:14] >> Yes.

[37:15] >> Um

[37:17] notice is Mr. Johnson, do you know if

[37:19] all required public

[37:20] notices of this hearing

[37:22] have been sent out?

[37:23] >> Yes, sir.

[37:25] >> And have um

[37:26] >> [laughter]

[37:28] >> nearby property owners been notified of

[37:30] this hearing?

[37:30] >> Yes, sir.

[37:31] >> Did you hear back from any of the nearby

[37:34] property owners?

[37:34] >> We heard back from one property owner.

[37:38] >> How many notices did you send out?

[37:40] >> Uh

[37:42] 14.

[37:45] Does that include Mr.

[37:47] Fogleman?

[37:48] >> Yes, there was 13 originally, and then

[37:50] we added to it.

[37:52] >> The adjacent neighbor, Mr. Fogleman, was

[37:55] a recent property owner

[37:57] that just bought the house, so we ended

[37:58] up notifying him outside the address as

[38:01] well.

[38:01] >> So, you sent 14 out?

[38:03] >> 14 total, yes, sir.

[38:11] » Um

[38:14] let me make sure

[38:18] I've got all the information I need as the background.

[38:22] What sort of new structures require

[38:25] just a building permit?

[38:32] » Um

[38:33] anything that's over 12 ft in any

[38:35] dimension.

[38:47] » Um

[38:50] You said the accessory building is 11 ft

[38:53] 8 in wide and 13 ft 8 in long. Does that

[38:57] come within the 12-ft rule

[39:00] so that it needs a building permit?

[39:01] >> It would need a building permit. If

[39:03] that's the If that's the actual

[39:05] measurement, yes.

[39:07] Um

[39:09] And and we we would have to check with

[39:10] the building code and and and John can

[39:12] answer if if we need be, but there there

[39:14] is some things that

[39:16] may or may not exclude the eaves in the

[39:18] building code. That's side was required.

[39:22] Eaves Eaves being required in the zoning

[39:24] ordinance. The building code's a little

[39:26] bit different, but we'll make that

[39:27] determination.

[39:30] But as it sits right now, yes, it is.

[39:33] It would require a building permit as

[39:35] well.

[39:41] And I I I think it's 2 or 3 weeks ago I

[39:43] reached out to Mrs. Ready just to

[39:45] so I'd know when the staff report the

[39:47] size of the building.

[39:48] And that's what he told me the

[39:50] dimensions were.

[39:58] » So tell me about the eaves. The eaves

[40:01] are included

[40:03] in any measurement from a wall line, right?

[40:08] >> That's correct.

[40:09] >> Does this building have eaves?

[40:18] » Looks like it does to me, yes.

[40:20] But I don't know the width to make it

[40:21] probably enlighten what the widths are.

[40:26] » It's about 4 and 1/2 inches from the handle.

[40:33] Mr. Johnson, what kind of structures

[40:35] require just a zoning permit?

[40:40] » Um

[40:45] any structure that would be

[40:47] an accessory building, period.

[40:49] Any size requires a zoning permit, and

[40:51] that's for

[40:53] >> [snorts]

[40:54] >> verification meeting setbacks.

[40:59] Building code don't kick in to 12 feet

[41:00] and above.

[41:04] » Okay, so if your accessory building is

[41:07] less than 12 feet, you don't you don't

[41:09] [snorts] have to get a zoning permit.

[41:10] >> That's right.

[41:11] >> You get a building permit.

[41:12] >> That's right.

[41:13] >> No.

[41:13] you don't you don't

[41:17] 12 12 feet and under didn't need a building permit.

[41:21] 12 foot greater, yes you do need it.

[41:25] >> Greater than 12 feet.

[41:26] >> 12 and greater greater greater than 12

[41:29] feet.

[41:31] >> [clears throat]

[41:32] >> So 10

[41:32] >> a zoning permit.

[41:34] >> Right.

[41:36] So 10 by 12

[41:38] would not require.

[41:43] » [snorts]

[41:45] » Okay.

[41:46] >> Yeah, so so

[41:47] just for reference, accessory buildings

[41:50] is in section R101

[41:52] .2.1

[41:55] building code international building

[41:56] code says

[41:58] accessory buildings with any dimension

[42:00] greater than 12 feet

[42:02] shall meet the provisions of this code.

[42:05] So you

[42:06] 12 above 12.

[42:10] » Above 12

[42:12] >> [snorts]

[42:14] >> you need a building permit.

[42:16] >> That's right.

[42:17] >> Above 12, you also have to get a zoning

[42:20] permit.

[42:21] >> A- Any accessory building requires a

[42:23] zoning permit.

[42:24] >> So, you're going to have to do

[42:25] >> 12. It's not based on 12 ft.

[42:27] >> No.

[42:28] >> Zoning permit is required

[42:30] for anything of any kind.

[42:32] >> A- Any structure we have to verify

[42:34] setback.

[42:36] Decks,

[42:38] accessory buildings, homes, buildings,

[42:40] anything. It's not based on a certain

[42:42] dimension.

[42:43] >> Okay.

[42:44] >> But, that's verification to meet

[42:45] setbacks.

[42:47] >> You went out there to see if there was

[42:48] work being done without a permit. What

[42:51] I take it you

[42:53] showed that work was being done without

[42:54] a permit.

[42:56] >> That's right.

[42:57] >> Without what permit? What permit should

[42:59] they [clears throat] have had?

[43:00] >> Well, it was determined what permit they

[43:01] would needed.

[43:02] And the determination was at that time

[43:05] that they needed a zoning permit.

[43:08] >> Because [snorts] all accessory buildings

[43:10] >> Yeah, I mean, and a lot of times

[43:12] any any land disturbance, if it's

[43:14] getting into significant land

[43:16] disturbance, but you need a zoning

[43:17] permit.

[43:19] Um

[43:22] you know, even if a lot of times if

[43:23] walls are

[43:24] and it's kind of a discretion call

[43:26] depending on the height of the wall, may

[43:27] or may not need a zoning permit, but

[43:29] that's that's different than the 4 ft of

[43:31] requiring engineering and a building

[43:33] code.

[43:35] But, the zoning permit is based on not

[43:37] solely, but based on meeting those

[43:39] setbacks.

[43:41] >> All right. Was it a Would a property

[43:43] owner

[43:45] who was getting ready to build

[43:47] an accessory building, this accessory

[43:49] building, would they need to get their

[43:51] permit before they started work?

[43:53] >> Yes.

[43:55] >> And had the survey days obtained a

[43:57] permit before they started work.

[44:00] >> [clears throat]

[44:00] >> No.

[44:09] » Okay.

[44:12] » So when when the zoning permit

[44:13] application was submitted

[44:16] Mr. included the site plan that you have

[44:19] there

[44:20] showing 10 by 12.

[44:23] Simply

[44:25] zoning permit is issued.

[44:28] However, we rely on

[44:31] going and doing a final inspection on

[44:33] something and making sure it meets what

[44:34] was submitted.

[44:36] Even though there was a time lapse in

[44:37] that form.

[44:42] So we're assuming a 10 by 12 is going to

[44:44] be built meeting the side setback.

[44:49] » Where are you getting the 10 by 12? I'm looking at the

[44:53] drawing

[44:56] uh

[44:57] it shows the shed intruding into the

[44:58] setback,

[45:00] but there's no dimensions on the shed.

[45:01] Where did

[45:04] Where where

[45:06] You're saying 10 by what? What size?

[45:09] >> [clears throat]

[45:13] » Yeah, but it it does it says 11 4

[45:16] it's on the zoning permit site plan.

[45:19] So if you show the

[45:21] 12 ft

[45:23] that's shown on there, that that's him showing the setback.

[45:26] >> Okay, we don't we don't have the zoning

[45:28] permit.

[45:30] >> No.

[45:31] >> On the actual application I wrote

[45:34] generic 10 by 12, but when I built this

[45:37] out, I had you know, put more precision

[45:40] in the pad itself. And I and I said 11 4

[45:43] by 13 6 is now 11 8 by 13 8. So

[45:48] I was off by a few inches, but I did not

[45:51] signify that I was within that 12 ft

[45:54] setback I mean told

[45:56] fact I told Kevin it was 12 side. I

[45:58] didn't have an as-built survey done,

[46:01] nothing done. I brought this twice.

[46:03] >> All right, I'll hold that thought.

[46:05] >> We'll get to him in a minute.

[46:06] We'll worry about that. Let's Let's finish with him first.

[46:11] Um

[46:15] » [snorts]

[46:18] » Okay. So, as far as the

[46:23] accessory building, when you went out

[46:24] there in March,

[46:27] the retaining wall was going to sit on

[46:29] was there?

[46:30] >> That's correct.

[46:32] >> And

[46:37] Well, I was going to ask you what was it Mr. Rothrock wanted to ask

[46:41] him?

[46:41] We're going to talk to him in just a

[46:43] minute.

[46:51] Um

[46:54] Have you measured the accessory building

[46:56] since it was complete?

[46:58] >> I haven't measured it, but it but it is

[47:00] complete.

[47:01] >> Right.

[47:02] >> I've been on site and it's complete.

[47:04] >> So, Mr. Seretti has told you it's 11 ft

[47:06] 8 in wide by 13 ft 8 in long, but you

[47:09] haven't measured it.

[47:11] >> That's right.

[47:19] » So, the building is encroaching into the

[47:21] 12 ft western side setback by how much?

[47:30] » So, the one to this picture, like they

[47:32] show a measurement here.

[47:36] Let me get to the

[47:39] » [snorts]

[47:45] » So, that's the bottom foot bottom corner

[47:47] of the accessory with the bottom of the accessory building

[47:50] there that's

[47:52] showing 10 ft. So, that's the wall.

[47:55] So, that that's telling me you need to

[47:57] add the eaves to that as well, which Mr.

[47:59] Freddy said was 1 and 1/2 inches.

[48:03] So you're looking at

[48:07] 10 you're looking at

[48:08] Excuse me, inch and a half my apologies.

[48:11] Um

[48:13] So you're looking at 2 feet 5 inches or

[48:15] so.

[48:20] Including the eve.

[48:21] >> Into the setback.

[48:23] that's right. And

[48:24] that's that's the furthest one point of

[48:26] that corner.

[48:27] And then it

[48:29] it's less as you go towards the front of

[48:30] the building.

[48:34] Towards that point that you see right

[48:36] there.

[48:37] >> All right, and the the maximum point of

[48:38] encroachment, what's

[48:41] it's

[48:41] >> It's 27.5

[48:43] inches.

[48:44] >> So so two 2.1 inches.

[48:48] 25 inches and plus the 4 and 1/2 they

[48:50] just mentioned was the eaves.

[48:53] So you're looking at 25 and 1/2 inches

[48:55] there.

[48:59] » That it encroaches into the setback.

[49:01] >> Yes.

[49:02] >> 25 and 1/2.

[49:05] >> Okay.

[49:10] » It'd be 27.5

[49:12] once you add the eaves back to the

[49:14] >> [clears throat]

[49:14] >> to the 23 inches

[49:16] that the sole walls encroaching into the

[49:18] setback.

[49:18] >> So 20 24

[49:21] >> So 23 plus 4 and 1/2.

[49:23] 27 and 1/2.

[49:25] >> No, it's more than that.

[49:27] >> [snorts]

[49:28] >> Technically 4 inches.

[49:29] >> 4 inches of leeway.

[49:30] It's not at a right angle, it's an

[49:32] angle, so we're taking a piece of that.

[49:35] » It'd be 24 inches plus 4 and 1/2 inches.

[49:38] >> Right, okay.

[49:39] >> So 28 and 1/2 inches.

[49:42] >> Is the total encroachment including the

[49:44] eaves?

[49:45] >> Yes.

[49:46] >> 28 What was it?

[49:48] >> 28 and 1/2.

[49:49] it. Okay.

[50:00] » So, they have requested a 2-ft variance,

[50:03] and that's not going to take care of it,

[50:04] is it?

[50:05] >> Sounds like it's not.

[50:10] » [cough]

[50:11] [clears throat]

[50:11] [snorts]

[50:12] >> That's one of the measurements looks

[50:13] like you see in that picture

[50:16] 24 in and 1 in 25 in. That's the

[50:19] measurement.

[50:20] That's the

[50:21] to that foundation wall.

[50:26] » Was a permit issued for the foundation

[50:28] wall at any point?

[50:29] >> No.

[50:30] >> And it has it was never measured.

[50:32] >> [clears throat]

[50:32] >> No.

[50:33] >> And I looked it up. It's

[50:35] >> [snorts]

[50:35] >> Any retaining wall exceeding 5 ft

[50:38] shall be designed and constructed under

[50:40] the responsible charge of a North

[50:41] Carolina registered professional

[50:43] engineer.

[50:44] Engineers shall submit a sealed report

[50:46] including final approval on the

[50:48] retaining structure construction to the

[50:50] building code official. None of that

[50:51] happened.

[50:52] >> Is is that in the ordinance the town

[50:53] code?

[50:54] Land use ordinance.

[50:55] >> It's 16.11.2.1

[50:58] part B.

[50:59] >> That's right.

[51:01] >> [snorts]

[51:04] [clears throat]

[51:04] >> So, that never happened. None of that.

[51:07] >> But it it could be included in his

[51:09] zoning permit.

[51:10] >> But it

[51:10] >> But you'd have to have engineering if

[51:11] it's certain not.

[51:12] >> But it wasn't, so none of that happened.

[51:18] » All right, Mr. Surveyor, are you

[51:20] following with us on this 28 and 1/2

[51:23] inches encroachment?

[51:27] Are you

[51:28] >> It's it's not quite that much, but

[51:32] » [clears throat]

[51:32] >> I

[51:34] never [snorts] had an as-built survey or

[51:35] as-built survey. He approximated

[51:39] 2 and 1/2, but

[51:41] I mean, come on. We're doing our best.

[51:44] What I think the property line is

[51:48] estimated. Nobody really has a precise

[51:50] number that the council has.

[51:52] Okay.

[51:56] » For the retaining wall?

[51:57] >> I'd have to refer to that.

[51:58] >> I can I'll

[52:02] Okay.

[52:02] >> Mr. Johnson, are there extreme problems

[52:04] with the lot at 369 Terry Acres Circle?

[52:09] By that I mean extreme slope or it's a

[52:12] very narrow lot. Do they have

[52:14] >> I I don't think in this I don't think

[52:17] that would have a bearing on this

[52:18] instance. Um

[52:21] No.

[52:30] » Are there

[52:31] places on the lot

[52:33] the entire lot where this accessory

[52:35] building

[52:36] could have been built without

[52:37] encroaching into any setback?

[52:39] >> Yes. I mean that was a solution was to move that corner and meet the

[52:46] setback.

[52:54] » So,

[52:55] could have been built just closer to the house?

[53:01] 2 or 3 ft closer to the house?

[53:03] >> Probably yes.

[53:06] Or could have been a smaller building.

[53:17] » Um

[53:21] All right. You said when you and Mr.

[53:22] Rothrock went in March

[53:25] to the site there at 369 Terry Acres

[53:28] Circle,

[53:30] you saw construction that had been done

[53:32] without a required permit.

[53:34] >> Yes.

[53:34] >> And what what all was it? Was it the

[53:37] Tell us what all you saw that had been

[53:39] built that did not have a permit.

[53:48] » So this part was there

[53:51] and all of this was there.

[53:53] >> I I keep seeing your red dot, but

[53:56] >> Um

[53:59] All all of this was there.

[54:02] Patio

[54:04] This

[54:05] part down here

[54:07] and it was [clears throat] looks like

[54:09] some some of the driveway had been

[54:10] redone.

[54:12] Um which no issues there. I mean it's

[54:14] been redone.

[54:15] >> Did the patio require a permit?

[54:17] >> Um it

[54:20] could have discretionally required a

[54:21] zoning permit.

[54:23] And and that's just to ensure compliance with any kind of

[54:28] you know erosion control measures um

[54:31] verify any setback issues that could

[54:33] have been there.

[54:35] Um

[54:36] building permit, probably not.

[54:40] Unless you know based on the height, it

[54:41] was

[54:42] just have to determine the height of

[54:43] that and see if it's over that

[54:44] threshold.

[54:45] >> Well, what's the status of that patio as

[54:46] far as permits? Was there a permit

[54:49] issued for the patio?

[54:50] >> At the time, no. But I mean all of this

[54:53] work

[54:54] can be covered under the zoning permit

[54:55] we have here. We're fine with that.

[54:57] There's no issues with the patio.

[54:59] >> Okay.

[55:00] Thank

[55:02] Did they get a permit after the fact?

[55:04] >> That's right.

[55:04] >> Okay. All right. And what else was

[55:06] there? The the retaining wall

[55:09] slash foundation for the building was

[55:11] there?

[55:12] >> Right. Yeah, most of it was more

[55:14] hardscape type stuff out here.

[55:17] And they can they can let you know it

[55:18] looks like maybe they'd resurfaced the

[55:20] driveway.

[55:21] Redone it, maybe reshaped it a little

[55:23] bit. We had no issues with that.

[55:26] Um

[55:28] So sometimes minor redoing of a driveway

[55:31] would probably wouldn't require a

[55:32] permit. Um

[55:34] it just depends on how involved it is.

[55:37] >> When you and Mr. Rothrock went out there

[55:39] in March, was there work going on,

[55:40] active work going on?

[55:42] >> There was not at the time we were there.

[55:44] >> Okay.

[55:46] Um

[55:48] » I I I

[55:50] mainly it looked like everything was

[55:51] done until

[55:53] you know, the the accessory building

[55:54] come into play.

[55:58] And then they can they can let you know

[55:59] probably when that was built, what time

[56:01] frame it was built.

[56:03] >> Is that building a stick-built building

[56:05] or is that

[56:05] >> I I think it was stick-built, but they

[56:07] can clarify that.

[56:21] » [snorts]

[56:22] >> Um

[56:28] It says Mr. Rothrock contacted Mr.

[56:30] Swearingen advise him about a zoning

[56:32] permit. Would you mind switching

[56:34] positions with Mr. Rothrock? I don't

[56:36] want to sit here

[56:37] just sit here, sir.

[56:49] So, Mr. Rothrock, you and Mr. Johnson

[56:51] went out to 360 N. Cherry Acres Circle

[56:53] in March of this year.

[56:57] » Yes.

[56:58] I went to give you a little bit of

[57:01] background. I went first

[57:03] >> Okay.

[57:03] >> by myself based on a call I had related to some some

[57:08] drainage issues.

[57:10] >> [snorts]

[57:10] >> And when when I got to the site

[57:13] there was quite a bit of work done.

[57:15] Um fencing, retaining not retaining

[57:18] wall, but more of a a decorative wall

[57:21] around the driveway and some drainage uh

[57:24] connections made.

[57:25] Um

[57:27] nothing that was an issue with that. And

[57:29] then there were guys working

[57:32] and they had

[57:33] uh completed a uh pad that you saw in

[57:36] the picture.

[57:37] This pad was under construction and then

[57:40] the other pad the uh

[57:42] what we determined to be a retaining

[57:44] wall

[57:45] was there, too. And and after that, I uh

[57:48] >> This was This was in March.

[57:50] >> This was in March. I called Mr.

[57:52] uh

[57:54] I don't remember if Brian and I went

[57:56] back out to look at it then. I was just

[57:58] unaware of of any permits that had been

[58:01] applied for at that time. And so, I

[58:04] called I think I may have called Brian

[58:06] and and Taylor just to check, "Hey, are

[58:08] there any permits issued for this

[58:09] property?"

[58:11] And I think Brian and I went back out.

[58:15] >> [snorts]

[58:18] » I don't remember if it was before I

[58:19] called Mr. Sureddi or after.

[58:23] But, we did let Mr. Sureddi know that he

[58:25] needed to apply for some permits for the

[58:27] work.

[58:28] And at that time, he let us know that he

[58:30] wanted to put a a building

[58:33] on that pad that you see there.

[58:37] And

[58:39] uh

[58:42] I said, "Well, it needs to meet the

[58:43] setbacks." 12-ft side setbacks.

[58:47] And

[58:48] when he brought his application in,

[58:51] uh we met with him in the office

[58:54] and at that time, he he had the concrete

[58:57] pad

[58:59] that you see in what was copied for you.

[59:01] And I said, "Mr. Sureddi, you need to

[59:03] make sure that this meets the 12-ft

[59:05] setback."

[59:06] Um

[59:07] >> This was the first time you talked to

[59:09] him.

[59:09] >> Yes, first time I talked to him.

[59:12] And then,

[59:13] uh

[59:15] that's when

[59:16] we went back out to the site to verify

[59:19] if that retaining structure

[59:22] met the setback, and apparently, at that

[59:24] time, it did not.

[59:27] And so,

[59:28] um

[59:31] I told Mr. Sreddy that he needs to meet

[59:32] the setback and that

[59:36] >> [snorts]

[59:37] >> I let Brian know

[59:38] that in reviewing this application that

[59:41] if he wanted to put a building there, it

[59:42] needed to be shifted on the lower back

[59:44] corner because it was too close to the

[59:46] property line.

[59:47] >> Right.

[59:48] >> And and to move if he's going to build a building on it, it needs to be shifted

[59:52] over

[59:53] to accommodate the the eve overhang and

[59:56] all that because the building would that

[59:58] pad was encroaching a little bit.

[1:00:01] A question I think you had about the the

[1:00:03] retaining structure.

[1:00:06] Retaining wall can be built right to the

[1:00:08] property line as long as it doesn't

[1:00:09] exceed 6 ft in height.

[1:00:12] You can

[1:00:14] also reduce the height of that by

[1:00:16] backfilling against the wall. That lower

[1:00:19] corner is between 6 and 7 ft

[1:00:22] above grade and so that could be

[1:00:24] adjusted

[1:00:25] to by backfilling the wall in that

[1:00:27] corner and reduce that height so it

[1:00:29] would meet the criteria for a retaining wall

[1:00:32] in the setback.

[1:00:34] >> So your problem

[1:00:36] is the house structure. It's not

[1:00:40] » You know, the the the structure if he

[1:00:43] never put a building on it, it's fine

[1:00:45] the way it is and he can use it as a

[1:00:47] patio. If he once he puts a building on

[1:00:49] it, it needs to be shifted in such a way

[1:00:51] to meet the setbacks.

[1:00:53] >> When you had that first conversation

[1:00:55] that's the first conversation you had.

[1:00:58] >> Yes, and

[1:00:58] >> You told him he needed to

[1:01:00] >> That's right.

[1:01:00] >> You told him he needed to encroach again

[1:01:02] for the setback.

[1:01:03] >> That's right. And I had Mr. Sreddy

[1:01:06] indicate that it would meet the 12 ft by

[1:01:09] and he drew on 12 ft

[1:01:12] in this dimension from the corner to the

[1:01:14] property line.

[1:01:16] >> Did he seem to understand what you were

[1:01:18] telling him in the conversation?

[1:01:19] >> I think so. I mean, I thought he did.

[1:01:25] » This was over the phone, I'm taking.

[1:01:27] >> I didn't hear you.

[1:01:28] >> This was on the phone This wasn't in

[1:01:29] person.

[1:01:30] >> It was in person. He was in our office.

[1:01:32] Yes.

[1:01:33] >> Okay, so you Okay.

[1:01:35] >> In the front office, we had the piece of

[1:01:36] paper and we were going over

[1:01:38] we need you need to make these

[1:01:39] indications on the plan for us to

[1:01:41] review.

[1:01:41] >> How did he know to come see?

[1:01:44] You didn't see him when you went out

[1:01:45] there on the site?

[1:01:46] >> No, we called him.

[1:01:47] >> You called him.

[1:01:48] >> Yes.

[1:01:48] >> And he came to the

[1:01:49] >> He came into our office.

[1:01:50] >> Okay, okay.

[1:01:52] And you told him that the building protruded into the setback

[1:01:57] and it had to be

[1:01:59] built

[1:02:00] >> Well, it wasn't built yet. We

[1:02:02] building here, it needs to meet the

[1:02:03] setbacks and indicate on your site plan

[1:02:06] that it will.

[1:02:07] >> Okay.

[1:02:09] >> Most people get surveys when they're

[1:02:10] going to do that and know that

[1:02:12] we could

[1:02:13] >> Not really. Not really, unless it's real

[1:02:15] close. And And yeah, they they do.

[1:02:18] Um

[1:02:19] >> He He had his property pins marked.

[1:02:22] Maybe we didn't order the bunch.

[1:02:24] >> I don't think there was a question of

[1:02:26] where the line was. I think it was

[1:02:29] self-evident.

[1:02:30] >> Sure.

[1:02:33] » If after If we have a hard time to

[1:02:36] determine the setback and we're having a

[1:02:38] hard time to determine where that line

[1:02:40] is,

[1:02:41] we'll request a foundation survey

[1:02:44] and it'll be

[1:02:45] dead on.

[1:02:47] In a lot of instances, we don't If it's

[1:02:49] 15 ft off the property line

[1:02:52] or more, we don't We can just pull the

[1:02:53] tape and be be sure of it.

[1:03:02] » So, he came in

[1:03:04] to your office and applied for a permit

[1:03:07] on April 6th of this year.

[1:03:08] >> That's right.

[1:03:09] >> Did you talk to him or Mr. Johnson?

[1:03:12] >> I did.

[1:03:12] >> You did.

[1:03:13] >> Yes.

[1:03:14] >> Um and he gave you some supporting

[1:03:17] material.

[1:03:18] >> That's right.

[1:03:20] That went along with his application.

[1:03:25] » And that shows 12 ft from the property

[1:03:27] line to the building.

[1:03:29] >> Right.

[1:03:31] >> Um

[1:03:35] » [snorts]

[1:03:40] » And said he did you issue him another

[1:03:42] permit?

[1:03:44] >> Well, I did

[1:03:46] uh later in June.

[1:04:11] » So Mr. Rothrock, he went out there to see if there was

[1:04:14] work or initially you went out there to

[1:04:16] see if there was work being done without

[1:04:17] a permit.

[1:04:18] There was.

[1:04:20] He talked to Mr. Swearingen.

[1:04:22] Um

[1:04:23] he told him he just needed to get the

[1:04:25] permit

[1:04:26] and get back up to speed with the

[1:04:28] legalities. Is that

[1:04:30] >> That's correct. Yes, sir.

[1:04:31] >> Get your permit

[1:04:33] and put the building um

[1:04:36] outside the setback.

[1:04:37] And every everything was forgiven as far

[1:04:40] as starting was out of line. Is that

[1:04:41] what you said?

[1:04:42] >> Right.

[1:04:44] Well,

[1:04:45] yes.

[1:04:50] » The permit was issued to him on June

[1:04:51] 24th this year.

[1:04:53] >> Right.

[1:05:00] » So at some point the building got built

[1:05:04] and it got built within the setback.

[1:05:08] >> Yes.

[1:05:12] » Um

[1:05:16] said Mr. Serrated contacted the planning

[1:05:18] and inspections office and indicated the

[1:05:20] structure had been built in the left

[1:05:22] rear corner encroached into the setback

[1:05:25] 18 inches or so.

[1:05:27] Did you talk to him?

[1:05:28] >> Or did the Brian talk to him?

[1:05:30] >> I talked to him.

[1:05:31] >> Yeah, Brian had all the conversations

[1:05:33] since then.

[1:05:51] » So, Mr. Johnson, you you told Mr.

[1:05:53] Serrated he was going to have to move

[1:05:54] the the building part of the structure.

[1:05:57] >> That's correct.

[1:05:58] >> Okay.

[1:06:04] Did he

[1:06:06] When you had that conversation, you

[1:06:07] called

[1:06:08] said, "Well, it's built in the back."

[1:06:10] It's in the setback. Did you ask him why

[1:06:11] he built it in the setback?

[1:06:13] >> [clears throat]

[1:06:14] >> I don't know if I asked him that

[1:06:16] specific question. I told him it needed

[1:06:18] to be moved to meet setback.

[1:06:29] » And you said you had a meeting.

[1:06:33] I said Mr. Tony H.E. Withers met with

[1:06:36] staff. Were you the staff that met with

[1:06:37] him?

[1:06:38] >> It was me and Kevin.

[1:06:40] >> At that time.

[1:06:42] >> Who we calling?

[1:06:44] >> And what was your understanding of Mr.

[1:06:46] Withers' role? Was he just a friend

[1:06:48] helping out Mr. Serrated?

[1:06:49] >> Yes.

[1:06:49] >> Okay.

[1:06:55] » Just maybe for for the record going back

[1:06:58] into zone to make Kevin's point out

[1:06:59] there was

[1:07:01] um

[1:07:03] Mr. Serrated had

[1:07:05] explored

[1:07:07] possibility easements, moving property

[1:07:09] lines.

[1:07:11] Uh

[1:07:12] the property adjacent to him on that

[1:07:14] side is vacant.

[1:07:15] And I think he he told me he'd had some

[1:07:17] conversation with the previous owner,

[1:07:19] maybe wanted to buy the lot.

[1:07:21] Um

[1:07:22] So I I'd put in the zoning to permit

[1:07:24] that.

[1:07:25] Um

[1:07:26] you know, continue those talks. I mean,

[1:07:28] you know, and I kind of give him some

[1:07:29] parameters of

[1:07:30] if it's you know, the number one an

[1:07:32] easement can't be an offset here for the property

[1:07:35] line moving, it could. And I advised him

[1:07:38] that's a possibility if you got

[1:07:39] permission. It'd have to be a

[1:07:41] you know, lot line adjustment. You've got a minimum

[1:07:44] lot size you'd have to maintain over

[1:07:46] here.

[1:07:47] And I think that just that's that's the

[1:07:49] last conversation I had with that. And I

[1:07:51] know he was exploring that on that side.

[1:07:53] >> Before it was built?

[1:07:56] >> No, this this was after he had received

[1:07:58] the permit and we had that discussion.

[1:08:01] >> Now,

[1:08:02] I I think

[1:08:04] Let me clarify if I could.

[1:08:06] >> Sure.

[1:08:07] >> I think at one point

[1:08:09] Mr. Before Mr. Seretti built it, he

[1:08:11] wanted to line up the building on the

[1:08:14] pad. And we found out the pad was into

[1:08:17] the setback.

[1:08:18] And we said, "Well, the only way you can

[1:08:20] do that is to move the line the property

[1:08:22] line. And if you can talk to the

[1:08:24] neighbor about making a jog in the line

[1:08:27] and doing a lot line revision to

[1:08:28] accommodate that, you could." And then

[1:08:31] he was exploring that as an option or

[1:08:33] buying the property next door.

[1:08:35] Um

[1:08:36] where he could do that himself. And then

[1:08:40] I think that didn't didn't work out. And

[1:08:42] so then the the permit reflected

[1:08:45] that conversation. If you can move that,

[1:08:48] then you can do that. If not, the

[1:08:49] building needs to meet the setback.

[1:08:51] >> Do you have a copy of the permit here?

[1:08:53] >> Yeah.

[1:08:54] >> Can you put it up there so we can see?

[1:08:57] >> Uh we'll make copies. We'll make copies

[1:08:59] for you.

[1:09:00] It's probably Mr. Mr. Seretti can

[1:09:02] correct me if we're wrong. And I think

[1:09:04] we may have if I'm wrong. And I think we

[1:09:05] may have discussed that when he had

[1:09:06] called that afternoon. Received the

[1:09:08] permit that he may still be exploring

[1:09:10] that.

[1:09:11] I don't know what his options are going

[1:09:12] to be with the next uh

[1:09:17] » we hear from Mr. Schrader?

[1:09:18] >> Um we're going to wait until we get

[1:09:20] through with that.

[1:09:27] Well, well, I'm going to see this zoning

[1:09:29] application.

[1:09:31] On the permit.

[1:09:34] I don't know about the rest of it, but

[1:09:35] I'm very confused.

[1:09:37] This is

[1:09:39] extremely confusing.

[1:09:41] >> Okay.

[1:09:47] Is there something we can answer to so

[1:09:48] that you're not confused? Is there a

[1:09:51] something that we can give you more

[1:09:52] information? You you've helped me out. I

[1:09:54] think I'm up to speed on it now.

[1:09:59] I just

[1:10:03] wonder how confusing this process was to

[1:10:05] Mr. Schrader. And I'll ask you that when we get to you in just a minute.

[1:10:09] Let's take a look at this

[1:10:12] zoning permit.

[1:10:41] » Thank you.

[1:11:04] » As you review the zoning permit

[1:11:07] comments two through eight are typical

[1:11:11] zoning comments we apply on the whole

[1:11:12] permits it's just

[1:11:14] trying to cover some highlights of the

[1:11:16] ordinance that's typically

[1:11:19] I need to be addressed or commonly

[1:11:20] addressed on projects single family homes.

[1:11:24] What you see read

[1:11:26] was kind of the discussion that we had

[1:11:28] with

[1:11:29] as far as we had

[1:11:30] Mrs. Reagan.

[1:11:33] » Okay.

[1:11:35] >> [clears throat]

[1:11:35] >> Um

[1:11:43] Okay. Just a few more questions.

[1:11:46] Mr. Johnson or Mr. Roth

[1:11:48] Rothrock either one.

[1:11:50] Um

[1:12:04] The um

[1:12:05] Blowing Rock ordinance section

[1:12:08] that controls the side setbacks is

[1:12:10] 16-12.4.

[1:12:12] >> Yes.

[1:12:14] >> And it says that in R-15 the side

[1:12:16] setback is to be 12 ft.

[1:12:18] >> That's right.

[1:12:57] » The accessory building as it is sitting

[1:13:00] there now.

[1:13:04] And if it stayed this

[1:13:05] would it impair emergency vehicles such

[1:13:08] as fire trucks and ambulances?

[1:13:11] >> No.

[1:13:14] » And if the

[1:13:16] building stays where it is now, would it

[1:13:17] create a fire hazard?

[1:13:20] >> No.

[1:13:23] » And if the building stays where it is

[1:13:24] now, would it block or impede visibility

[1:13:27] on any street or highway?

[1:13:28] >> No.

[1:13:32] » And if the building stays where it is

[1:13:34] now, would it be contrary to public

[1:13:35] health or safety in any way that you are

[1:13:37] aware of?

[1:13:42] » I don't know.

[1:13:47] » [snorts]

[1:14:00] » The property there, 369 Cherry Acre

[1:14:03] Circle.

[1:14:05] Are you Are you aware of any um

[1:14:09] serious problems with the lot that would

[1:14:11] make construction

[1:14:12] um

[1:14:13] of this building

[1:14:15] extremely difficult?

[1:14:17] >> No.

[1:14:22] » Do you think this building could have

[1:14:23] been built in

[1:14:25] uh

[1:14:26] other places on the lot without

[1:14:28] achieving any setback?

[1:14:31] » Yes.

[1:14:34] » Including closer to the house, just

[1:14:36] getting closer to the house.

[1:14:37] >> Yes.

[1:14:46] » Would you say there are any unique

[1:14:47] features to the property at 369

[1:14:50] Terry Circle?

[1:14:52] >> It's

[1:14:53] Terry Acres Circle.

[1:14:55] >> Are there any unique features? Is that

[1:14:56] what you asked?

[1:14:58] Did you ask are there any unique

[1:15:00] features?

[1:15:00] >> any unique features of the of the whole

[1:15:02] lot that you're aware of?

[1:15:04] >> No.

[1:15:05] >> [snorts]

[1:15:20] » I don't have any further questions. Any

[1:15:21] board member at this point have any

[1:15:23] further questions to Mr. Rothrock or Mr.

[1:15:25] Johnson?

[1:15:26] >> No.

[1:15:26] >> Mr. Shredder, do you want to ask him any

[1:15:28] questions?

[1:15:30] >> I want to make some clarification

[1:15:31] statements.

[1:15:33] >> If you don't have any questions to them,

[1:15:35] we're ready to hear from you.

[1:15:39] Come on up and take Mr.

[1:15:41] Rothrock's place.

[1:15:45] And Mr. Withers?

[1:15:46] >> Yes, sir.

[1:15:47] >> What's your role in all of this?

[1:15:49] >> I'm [clears throat] going to tell you

[1:15:50] all that.

[1:15:53] You're still hot, man. I'm about to

[1:15:54] freeze. So, if I'm shaking a little bit,

[1:15:56] it's cuz I'm cold.

[1:15:58] Um

[1:16:00] My name's Tony Withers. Um

[1:16:02] I'm just a personal friend of Fred's.

[1:16:05] Um I'm not I'm I'm a registered

[1:16:08] professional engineer. Uh retired.

[1:16:11] >> [clears throat]

[1:16:12] >> I'm not representing anybody

[1:16:13] professionally other than Fred who's my

[1:16:15] Mr. Fred who's my friend, been friend

[1:16:17] for a long, long time.

[1:16:19] And we've been coming up here

[1:16:21] to his place, very nice place, for 4 or

[1:16:23] 5 or 6 years since he bought it.

[1:16:25] And

[1:16:27] um

[1:16:29] I apologize for the informality of the

[1:16:31] application. I think it had covered all

[1:16:34] the information that needed to be

[1:16:35] covered. And I think

[1:16:36] pictures I took and showed, I think I

[1:16:38] can answer some of the questions or all

[1:16:40] the you've presented.

[1:16:42] Um

[1:16:44] >> [clears throat]

[1:16:46] » And we don't have any issues with Brian

[1:16:48] and Kevin or anything they've done.

[1:16:50] Everything's been fine, perfect. They've

[1:16:52] been great to work with. No issues

[1:16:53] there. I want to make that perfectly

[1:16:55] clear.

[1:16:56] Uh they represent the town very, very

[1:16:57] well and we appreciate that.

[1:17:00] So, Fred is a friend of mine. I came up

[1:17:02] here. He bought a house on Terry Acre

[1:17:04] Circle. After a few years, he wanted to

[1:17:06] pave his driveway. So, he did us, you

[1:17:08] know, crackerjack job and fixed his

[1:17:09] driveway up with the retaining walls and

[1:17:11] everything. It looked so good, he

[1:17:13] thought he would expand with contractor

[1:17:15] into a patio, which kind of evolved

[1:17:19] into a patio, which then kind of evolved

[1:17:22] into an accessory building. Um

[1:17:25] I wasn't really involved in this process

[1:17:27] other than just talking to Fred during

[1:17:28] the process.

[1:17:30] It takes time to get things done up here

[1:17:32] with contractors.

[1:17:33] And I will tell you that Fred is a IBM

[1:17:36] career IBM employee and CPA and probably

[1:17:40] not as familiar with this type of stuff

[1:17:42] as you are, as I am, having been in this

[1:17:45] business for a long time. Planning and

[1:17:46] zoning and setbacks and all those things

[1:17:48] are very important in our

[1:17:51] arena.

[1:17:52] You know, here again, the the general

[1:17:55] public is not aware

[1:17:57] of property surveys, of setbacks, of all

[1:18:00] these zoning issues that that you guys

[1:18:02] deal with all the time.

[1:18:04] Um

[1:18:06] I would also say that Fred is active in

[1:18:08] the community, makes donations for the

[1:18:11] flowers. He's a he's a, you know, a

[1:18:13] solid

[1:18:15] citizen about 40% of the year in Blowing

[1:18:17] Rock.

[1:18:18] Um I think that's important

[1:18:20] to point out.

[1:18:21] Um

[1:18:24] I don't think I think we've

[1:18:26] The property line is not parallel to the house, which is one thing that I

[1:18:32] think could create a little bit of an

[1:18:33] issue.

[1:18:34] Um and And was never a a

[1:18:37] boundary survey of the property. We do

[1:18:39] have a pretty good idea what the

[1:18:40] property line was and I think these

[1:18:42] measurements on there were within a few

[1:18:43] inches of the property and it was close

[1:18:45] enough for government purposes.

[1:18:47] Um if we're down to inches then we're

[1:18:49] probably not, but I think a 24-in

[1:18:51] encroachment is probably

[1:18:53] sufficient for what's needed

[1:18:55] without wanting to do the expensive

[1:18:56] additional survey.

[1:18:58] So anyway, we came up here and and as I

[1:19:00] learned more and more about this and

[1:19:02] Fred got into the situation and working

[1:19:04] through this, he was getting ready to

[1:19:05] spend a lot of money moving the house

[1:19:07] and tearing it down and do whatever he

[1:19:08] needs to do to modify

[1:19:10] you know, I made the comment in why

[1:19:12] don't we at least ask the Board of

[1:19:13] Adjustments for a 24-in encroachment and

[1:19:15] do a 12-ft setback. I felt like it was a

[1:19:17] reasonable request

[1:19:19] uh to do. So I put together the

[1:19:21] application and met with Brian Kevin and

[1:19:23] that's what I did and submitted it and

[1:19:25] that's why we're here right now. Um

[1:19:28] So based on that,

[1:19:30] I would say that um the variance is

[1:19:33] minimal.

[1:19:35] I would say it creates no impact on the

[1:19:37] neighborhood properties.

[1:19:39] I would say it's consistent with the

[1:19:40] character of the neighborhood.

[1:19:43] I would say

[1:19:44] the topo and existing site conditions

[1:19:47] including the the line that's skewed to

[1:19:49] the to the house which creates a problem

[1:19:52] at the rear of the the building not the

[1:19:53] front of the building.

[1:19:54] Um

[1:19:55] might might impact some of the reason for the encroachment.

[1:20:01] Uh I would say the variance will not

[1:20:03] impair public safety

[1:20:05] or interfere with

[1:20:06] the purpose of the zoning ordinance.

[1:20:09] I would say the variance is minimal

[1:20:10] minimally needed for the relief

[1:20:12] requested and the converging lot as I

[1:20:15] said presented a little bit of a typical

[1:20:17] situation.

[1:20:19] Um

[1:20:21] And I would say based upon my experience

[1:20:23] in the business this business

[1:20:25] representing other property owners on a

[1:20:28] multitude of issues like this

[1:20:30] that I don't see any real benefit in

[1:20:31] making Fred spend a whole bunch of money

[1:20:35] and

[1:20:37] the hardship to modify an existing

[1:20:39] well-built building that is attractive,

[1:20:42] matches the house in colors and

[1:20:43] architectural

[1:20:46] standards

[1:20:47] for an outbuilding with just a corner

[1:20:50] that's only encroaching about 20 in into

[1:20:52] the setback line to meet the code when

[1:20:55] no malicious intent was intended.

[1:20:57] Um

[1:20:59] I would just say that you know, an error

[1:21:01] was made. There was no question about

[1:21:03] that. Um but I just think it's a it's a

[1:21:06] hardship on him

[1:21:08] to have to spend that for something

[1:21:09] that's that minimal. Um

[1:21:11] it doesn't impact

[1:21:14] any of the adjacent neighbors for all

[1:21:16] the reasons we talked about. Um

[1:21:18] I think the letter of the law has

[1:21:19] definitely been violated, but I think

[1:21:22] the spirit of the law and the intent of

[1:21:23] the law was certainly this is certainly

[1:21:25] except.

[1:21:27] And I'll welcome any questions or

[1:21:29] comments or thoughts that I need to

[1:21:30] explain any of these

[1:21:33] uh

[1:21:34] pictures that we put up. He's He's

[1:21:36] certainly proud of his property and

[1:21:37] enjoys his property and he's done very nice job. He's improved the value

[1:21:42] of the property substantially, which I'm

[1:21:44] sure will be collected in future

[1:21:46] property tax uh

[1:21:48] to the town.

[1:21:49] So, um

[1:21:51] anyway, that's all I've got. If you've

[1:21:53] got any questions for me and then if

[1:21:54] Fred feels like he needs to answer any

[1:21:56] questions.

[1:21:56] >> We have some questions, but first of

[1:21:58] all, I'll ask the representative from

[1:22:00] the town if you have any questions of

[1:22:02] Mr. Weathers, Dave, Mr. Johnson.

[1:22:04] Mr. Rothrock, any board member have any

[1:22:06] questions of him?

[1:22:08] >> Tell me one thing that I thought about.

[1:22:10] How much along the wall is in the

[1:22:12] encroachment? I mean, how how how many

[1:22:14] feet in down the line?

[1:22:17] For example.

[1:22:18] >> I'll explain what Okay, stop right

[1:22:19] there. The line comes down like this.

[1:22:22] >> Uh-huh.

[1:22:22] >> The front corner of the building, which

[1:22:24] is up here, is is right there.

[1:22:27] >> Right there.

[1:22:27] >> When you get to right there, you're

[1:22:29] about a ft so now we're going into the

[1:22:31] building. So that

[1:22:34] and it looks like that's about 4 ft so I

[1:22:36] think we're going to foundation issues

[1:22:38] based on that.

[1:22:41] Take measure of that later just to get a

[1:22:44] I was trying to represent where it hit.

[1:22:49] Now this built where you're so I'm not

[1:22:52] it's probably about halfway down the

[1:22:53] building.

[1:22:55] Yeah, I'd say about halfway is probably

[1:22:56] good.

[1:22:57] Maybe halfway. And then if you want to

[1:22:59] go to the other one and if you maybe

[1:23:00] you'll understand the rest of the

[1:23:01] pictures. Yeah,

[1:23:03] I got it. I'm trying to graphically You

[1:23:05] got what I wanted though. You got what I

[1:23:06] wanted.

[1:23:07] Thank you. Anything else Mr. Miguel?

[1:23:09] No waiting. And if the board member have

[1:23:11] any questions for

[1:23:13] Who built it? I don't know who the

[1:23:14] contractor was.

[1:23:17] And the contractor

[1:23:18] okay.

[1:23:19] You did hire a contractor? Yes, we did.

[1:23:22] Who was the contractor?

[1:23:25] And the name of the contractor do you

[1:23:26] remember what his name is?

[1:23:28] Sure, yeah.

[1:23:29] Uh

[1:23:30] I don't have my phone.

[1:23:32] All right, we'll get we'll get back to

[1:23:33] you in just a minute. Mr.

[1:23:35] Um

[1:23:38] H.E. Withers Mr. Tony Withers.

[1:23:40] >> Yes, sir.

[1:23:41] >> Do you mind if I get your address?

[1:23:43] >> Uh I'm 6116 Oxfordshire Court, Raleigh.

[1:23:50] » Oxfordshire Court, Raleigh.

[1:23:54] >> I've been a practicing engineer in the

[1:23:56] state of North Carolina for about

[1:23:58] 45 years.

[1:23:59] >> Which is zip code?

[1:24:00] >> 27606

[1:24:02] >> Okay, what kind of engineer are you?

[1:24:03] >> Civil.

[1:24:06] » Were you visiting Mr. Serani before you

[1:24:09] built all this?

[1:24:10] >> I've been visiting since he bought the

[1:24:11] house. I helped him

[1:24:14] research the area.

[1:24:16] >> And back back in the talking stages

[1:24:20] why didn't you suggest to him that he

[1:24:21] check to see if he needed a permit?

[1:24:23] >> Um

[1:24:25] I think we talked about permits during

[1:24:27] the process.

[1:24:28] You know, here again, I

[1:24:31] that wasn't what I was You know, I would

[1:24:33] come up from time to time and

[1:24:35] driveway was dirt.

[1:24:37] I ran my car into one of the rocks

[1:24:39] that's sticking out of this wall.

[1:24:41] Decided he needed to widen his driveway

[1:24:43] and do a little better job with it. So,

[1:24:45] he ended up

[1:24:46] making lots of little projects. And he

[1:24:48] was going to build a fire pit initially.

[1:24:50] And then the fire pit all of a sudden

[1:24:52] turned into

[1:24:53] you know, a pretty big project. I was

[1:24:55] surprised when I when I actually saw

[1:24:57] what he ultimately built. I haven't

[1:24:59] really been up there in a year.

[1:25:01] All this was done since I've been up

[1:25:03] here.

[1:25:05] >> I don't have anything else. Anybody else

[1:25:07] have any questions on

[1:25:09] Um

[1:25:09] Mr. Swerlick, can we hear from you?

[1:25:11] >> I'd love to speak.

[1:25:12] >> Come on up.

[1:25:13] >> Okay.

[1:25:15] >> Thank you.

[1:25:19] Um

[1:25:24] The contractor that you used can can

[1:25:27] Juan

[1:25:29] Um

[1:25:29] Guzman Padilla.

[1:25:32] J U A N

[1:25:35] Guzman G U C M A N P A D I L L A

[1:25:40] Padilla. I believe that's

[1:25:42] Juan Guzman Padilla Padilla P A D I L L A

[1:25:50] Okay.

[1:25:54] Um

[1:25:58] You've

[1:26:01] been wanting to tell us one or two

[1:26:03] things as we've been talking to the town

[1:26:05] representatives. We talked to the

[1:26:07] speaker today, so now

[1:26:09] >> I would love to. Please.

[1:26:10] >> Okay. So, this since we've kind of got

[1:26:13] into this sidebar

[1:26:16] and

[1:26:17] retaining walls,

[1:26:19] patio and all that. I want to go back a

[1:26:22] little bit further in time when we

[1:26:23] really started this project, which was

[1:26:25] probably

[1:26:27] May of 2025.

[1:26:30] And there is what we hired a

[1:26:34] mason to

[1:26:36] tear down the retaining walls we had,

[1:26:38] which were falling apart,

[1:26:40] and put in new retaining walls,

[1:26:43] as well as that led to a driveway and

[1:26:47] two stone pillars on either side of

[1:26:49] driveway as you

[1:26:51] enter from the street.

[1:26:54] And

[1:26:56] the electrical contractor I hired at the

[1:26:57] time

[1:27:01] Well, I can't I'm drawing a blank. Roby

[1:27:03] Services.

[1:27:05] They're out of boom.

[1:27:06] They said I needed permit for the

[1:27:09] running the wires. So, I said fine. They

[1:27:12] worked through the Kevin and Brian. I

[1:27:14] did not interface with them at that

[1:27:16] time.

[1:27:17] Um

[1:27:18] I actually dug the line to make sure it

[1:27:20] was 18 inches myself personally

[1:27:23] to satisfy the code for the wire that

[1:27:25] had to go from the house to the street

[1:27:27] where the two lights were.

[1:27:29] At that time,

[1:27:32] Kevin came back. I was not there. My

[1:27:35] wife and electrical contractor were

[1:27:37] there.

[1:27:38] And at that time, in addition to

[1:27:41] you know, certifying the line was okay

[1:27:44] and

[1:27:44] dug at the right depth,

[1:27:47] he started to look at the retaining wall

[1:27:49] for the parking pad.

[1:27:51] And he went up to it

[1:27:52] and he said, "Well, I'm 6 ft. That's

[1:27:54] taller than me, but oh, you got 2 ft of

[1:27:59] you know, air and all that's

[1:28:01] parallel to

[1:28:03] you know, the same height as the road.

[1:28:05] So, really less than 6 ft." And

[1:28:07] basically told my wife proceed. And this

[1:28:10] was last year. This was probably May,

[1:28:12] June, July of last year.

[1:28:15] So,

[1:28:16] I said, well,

[1:28:18] um obviously probably should have got a

[1:28:20] permit, but we didn't, but we're going

[1:28:22] to proceed. That was the only

[1:28:24] communication with Kevin at that time.

[1:28:27] Um

[1:28:28] and kind of fast forward, um

[1:28:32] I said, well, I'm going to do this shed.

[1:28:34] I need to get a permit. And I just that

[1:28:37] wasn't prompted by anybody. It was me.

[1:28:39] Okay. I went into the office early April

[1:28:42] with that permit that you've seen.

[1:28:45] Um

[1:28:46] and presented to Kevin.

[1:28:49] At the time I went into the office, he

[1:28:52] told me about my neighbor, my new next

[1:28:54] door neighbor,

[1:28:55] that was questioning the drain

[1:29:00] that we put in as part of the drainage

[1:29:02] for the new driveway.

[1:29:04] And I said, okay, well, this is the

[1:29:06] first I've heard of that. I didn't know

[1:29:08] that the drain was an issue with my new

[1:29:10] neighbor. I'd never even talked to him.

[1:29:13] And I said, if I had known that, I would

[1:29:14] have cut the drain. In fact, that day I

[1:29:16] went back and cut the drain, so it

[1:29:18] wouldn't be intruding on his property

[1:29:19] line.

[1:29:21] Um

[1:29:22] but between March, which I was not aware

[1:29:26] that they arrived on my property,

[1:29:28] to

[1:29:29] evaluate

[1:29:30] Apparently it all got precipitated by

[1:29:32] him coming from my neighbor questioning

[1:29:35] my drain.

[1:29:36] And that's when he said, whoa, should

[1:29:38] have got a permit. And I That's I never

[1:29:41] communicated with Kevin about I needed a

[1:29:43] permit on all that.

[1:29:46] Um

[1:29:48] and so I

[1:29:49] without any knowledge of March

[1:29:51] happening,

[1:29:53] only knowledge I had was my neighbor

[1:29:54] about the drain on the other side of the

[1:29:56] property.

[1:29:57] I brought in the permit unprompted by

[1:30:00] any human being. I did it on my own,

[1:30:02] because I thought that was the right

[1:30:04] thing to do.

[1:30:05] I brought the permit. You relate this to

[1:30:07] the drain?

[1:30:09] This is no, the permit for the shed.

[1:30:11] >> Had you already had a conversation with

[1:30:13] this Rothrock on

[1:30:14] >> Not prior to that.

[1:30:17] » You came into their office?

[1:30:19] >> I brought it in the office and brought

[1:30:21] it to Kevin, but he was implying that

[1:30:23] the only reason I came to the office is

[1:30:25] because of some conversation I had

[1:30:27] between him coming in March and me

[1:30:29] coming to the office. That conversation

[1:30:31] did not occur about

[1:30:34] anything related to the shed. The only

[1:30:36] conversation I had with Kevin was

[1:30:39] related to the drain on the other side

[1:30:41] of the property caused by my neighbor.

[1:30:44] That was the only conversation. No

[1:30:45] conversation. He did not suggest that I

[1:30:48] bring in a permit for the shed. That was

[1:30:51] unprompted.

[1:30:52] I brought it in myself without any cue

[1:30:54] from Kevin or anybody else.

[1:30:57] >> So on April 6th had the foundation

[1:30:59] >> Somewhere around Yeah, I mean

[1:31:00] >> retaining wall had already been built?

[1:31:02] >> The pad was done.

[1:31:04] >> And that's what you were calling the

[1:31:05] retaining

[1:31:06] >> out the pad.

[1:31:06] >> Retaining wall, pad, foundation, what

[1:31:08] are we what are we calling it?

[1:31:10] >> Uh,

[1:31:11] well that's the pad. That's where the

[1:31:13] shed was built. So all of that was done

[1:31:15] when I presented the permit to Kevin.

[1:31:17] >> So Okay, that was finished on April 6th,

[1:31:20] the pad.

[1:31:21] >> Yeah, just the pad.

[1:31:23] And then I brought in the permit.

[1:31:24] >> That the pad you was what you calling

[1:31:26] the pad?

[1:31:27] >> No, no. The pad I'm calling the pad

[1:31:29] where the shed is at.

[1:31:30] >> That's under the shed.

[1:31:32] >> Related to the permit. The permit was

[1:31:34] only for the shed and the pad, which I

[1:31:37] call with the structure under the shed.

[1:31:40] Is the pad on the permit.

[1:31:41] >> Okay.

[1:31:42] >> You want to explain

[1:31:43] >> Is [clears throat] there a concrete

[1:31:45] floor?

[1:31:46] >> Yes.

[1:31:46] >> Is he walking on the Is it a floor?

[1:31:48] >> Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[1:31:49] >> Okay.

[1:31:51] >> [clears throat]

[1:31:54] » When did you first hear that the

[1:31:57] um, building this plan was going to

[1:31:59] encroach into the setback?

[1:32:02] Uh

[1:32:03] Kevin came back out and I don't know if

[1:32:05] it was just Kevin or Brian or both of

[1:32:07] them.

[1:32:09] And they laid a board on the concrete

[1:32:13] pad.

[1:32:15] And said, "This is

[1:32:16] where you need to build."

[1:32:19] what? The shed.

[1:32:22] Because of the setback. Correct.

[1:32:24] Okay.

[1:32:26] >> And that isn't where it ended up getting

[1:32:28] built, right?

[1:32:31] >> No, I decided I made a decision based on

[1:32:34] my view that was in the spirit of the

[1:32:37] law, not maybe the

[1:32:40] legality of the law, the letter of the

[1:32:42] law, however you want to call it,

[1:32:43] because

[1:32:45] the this pad was fine.

[1:32:49] But as soon as I put a structure on it,

[1:32:51] >> Right.

[1:32:52] >> it became

[1:32:53] bad.

[1:32:56] Somehow that was nebulous to me. I'm

[1:32:59] sorry, that's just

[1:33:01] And I decided to

[1:33:04] uh

[1:33:05] build the structure on the pad because I

[1:33:08] did not think it affected the spirit of

[1:33:11] the law

[1:33:13] because the pad was okay, but the

[1:33:16] building was not okay.

[1:33:20] That's why I took the risk.

[1:33:22] And why we're here today, unfortunately.

[1:33:24] I'm dragging you all in here, but

[1:33:26] I believe that what I did

[1:33:30] violated the letter of the law, as

[1:33:32] Tony's already said, but I do not

[1:33:33] believe it violated the spirit of the

[1:33:35] law, particularly given the pad is okay.

[1:33:39] All right.

[1:33:40] >> Just for the record, I disagree that the

[1:33:42] pad's okay. Even looking at your permit

[1:33:45] that was that you it was issued in June

[1:33:47] that you applied for in April, you

[1:33:48] didn't apply for a permit for the pad,

[1:33:49] which you should have.

[1:33:51] And it's certainly any retain We're

[1:33:53] going to call it a retaining wall, it's

[1:33:54] certainly over 4 ft in height, requires

[1:33:56] an engineering

[1:33:57] engineer design and inspection.

[1:33:59] No retaining walls over 6 ft in height

[1:34:01] are permitted within the side rear yard

[1:34:03] setback. And Kevin said when he was

[1:34:05] talking that the back side of that pad

[1:34:07] is 6 to 7 ft.

[1:34:09] And

[1:34:12] um

[1:34:15] the portion of the building within the

[1:34:16] 12-ft setback will need to be removed to

[1:34:19] meet it. Failure to meet the

[1:34:20] requirements of the ordinance will

[1:34:21] result in a violation of this permit.

[1:34:23] And if we're going to call it a

[1:34:24] foundation, a foundation survey may be

[1:34:26] required. I don't think any of this

[1:34:29] meets the code.

[1:34:31] >> Okay, well,

[1:34:32] this is the

[1:34:33] So,

[1:34:35] this whole

[1:34:37] And I I'd also like to just say just

[1:34:39] kind of

[1:34:39] >> I

[1:34:40] >> jumping ahead.

[1:34:41] >> Somehow I got an we got an

[1:34:42] after-the-fact permit, I've been told,

[1:34:45] supposedly, on everything but this

[1:34:47] storage shed. So,

[1:34:49] you're saying it's not in code, but

[1:34:52] the town of Blowing Rock is saying it

[1:34:54] is. So, I'm confused.

[1:34:56] >> What I'm reading this part concerns me.

[1:34:59] as much as the building.

[1:35:01] >> I'm just confused, completely confused

[1:35:03] now.

[1:35:04] Um cuz I was not anticipating getting a

[1:35:07] discussion on something that in theory

[1:35:08] was approved that I didn't apply for.

[1:35:10] >> Well, it wasn't approved. You said it

[1:35:11] was built before you got a permit.

[1:35:13] >> I was not aware I had to get a permit.

[1:35:15] >> Well,

[1:35:16] that doesn't that doesn't matter.

[1:35:18] >> Well, let's stick to just Can we stick

[1:35:20] to the facts of this variance, please?

[1:35:22] >> Yeah, let's let's jump ahead to Hardship

[1:35:25] did not result from actions taken by the

[1:35:27] applicant or the property owner. That's

[1:35:29] state law.

[1:35:32] » Okay, you got me there. All right, so

[1:35:37] » If there's facts that refute that, I'd

[1:35:40] love to hear them, but I haven't heard a

[1:35:41] single one.

[1:35:43] >> [snorts]

[1:35:45] » Okay, so

[1:35:49] I'm not going to debate that point. Mr.

[1:35:52] Shuray, you're obviously a nice guy, but

[1:35:54] you can't just decide

[1:35:57] it's okay to break the law a little bit.

[1:35:59] It just doesn't work that way.

[1:36:02] >> And I also say that when I drove by your

[1:36:03] house, the driveway, everything, it's

[1:36:05] gorgeous.

[1:36:06] >> Pardon me?

[1:36:06] >> The driveway, everything, it's gorgeous

[1:36:08] when I drove by there yesterday. So, I

[1:36:10] you know, I'm not criticizing, I'm

[1:36:13] saying

[1:36:14] the law is the law, and I you can't

[1:36:18] you just can't decide not to follow.

[1:36:26] » All right, so anything else you want to

[1:36:28] say?

[1:36:28] >> No, I have nothing else to say unless

[1:36:29] you have something to say.

[1:36:32] >> [snorts]

[1:36:32] >> I think we went by that already.

[1:36:35] I could

[1:36:37] >> [clears throat]

[1:36:38] >> And I think we acquiesced that that we

[1:36:40] yes, we agreed that the letter of the

[1:36:42] law was violated. I don't think anybody

[1:36:44] ever said that, but I think based on the

[1:36:47] circumstances,

[1:36:48] you know, the corner of the building and

[1:36:50] the 12-ft setback is certainly worth

[1:36:53] a request

[1:36:55] for mercy on the court or whatever you

[1:36:57] call it, prayer for judgment uh in a

[1:36:59] situation like this

[1:37:00] >> There's nothing There's nothing wrong

[1:37:01] with asking.

[1:37:02] >> Yeah, I see what you're saying.

[1:37:04] >> That's right.

[1:37:04] >> And and so, we're here under those

[1:37:06] circumstances. He certainly understands

[1:37:09] uh

[1:37:10] the cost implement and the

[1:37:11] implementation of moving, you know, his

[1:37:13] building or taking two or three feet off

[1:37:15] the building to get it within the

[1:37:17] I mean, but we did you know, we thought

[1:37:19] we'd come and and ask and hope as a good citizen um the

[1:37:24] opportunity for mercy would be

[1:37:27] um

[1:37:28] a possibility.

[1:37:29] And that's all we can do.

[1:37:31] >> [clears throat]

[1:37:33] » Yes.

[1:37:34] >> I am actually one of the neighbors.

[1:37:36] >> Yes.

[1:37:38] >> Do I have permission to make a comment?

[1:37:40] >> If you want to get sworn in, then you

[1:37:42] got to get sworn in. Okay.

[1:37:44] >> [snorts]

[1:37:45] >> She is sworn.

[1:37:48] » I believe it is 10 minutes speaking.

[1:37:53] » Do you solemnly swear that the evidence

[1:37:54] you shall give to this body in this

[1:37:56] matter being heard shall be the truth,

[1:37:58] the whole truth, and nothing but the

[1:37:59] truth? So, do you swear to that?

[1:38:00] >> Yes.

[1:38:01] >> Okay.

[1:38:07] Tell us your name and your address,

[1:38:09] please.

[1:38:10] >> Yes, sir.

[1:38:11] My name is Sayed Khan.

[1:38:13] I am a semi-retired physician, and I

[1:38:17] live at 277 Terry Acres Circle.

[1:38:20] >> Okay, can you spell your name for me?

[1:38:22] >> S as in Sammy, A as in apple, Y as in

[1:38:24] Edward, E as in Edward, D as in David.

[1:38:27] K as in kilo, H as in Helen, A as in

[1:38:30] apple, N as in Nancy.

[1:38:32] As you can see, I've got

[1:38:33] >> One more time on the last sentence.

[1:38:35] >> You've said that so many times, you guys

[1:38:37] >> I've said it so many times.

[1:38:38] >> I've said it a hundred times. Once more

[1:38:40] with feeling.

[1:38:41] >> Sorry, what's the

[1:38:43] >> K as in kilo, H as in Helen,

[1:38:47] A as in apple, N as in Nancy.

[1:38:50] >> Khan.

[1:38:52] Okay, all right. And do you mind giving

[1:38:54] us your address?

[1:38:55] >> 277 Terry Acres Circle,

[1:38:58] Blowing Rock,

[1:39:01] 28605.

[1:39:02] >> Okay. What did you want to tell us?

[1:39:05] >> Well,

[1:39:06] um

[1:39:06] we actually live on the street

[1:39:10] with Fred. In fact, today's the first

[1:39:13] day I found out your last name.

[1:39:16] But, [laughter] uh

[1:39:17] we have been neighbors for now about 4

[1:39:19] or 5 years,

[1:39:20] and

[1:39:22] one of the things which I don't think

[1:39:24] anybody's really mentioned is the post

[1:39:27] Helene effects on our drainage, cuz

[1:39:30] we're on a ridge.

[1:39:32] We had massive issues with erosion.

[1:39:36] And, uh

[1:39:38] most of my neighbors, including myself,

[1:39:40] we have spent a substantial amount of

[1:39:43] money putting in newer retaining walls

[1:39:46] and had a brand new house. Um we've also

[1:39:49] had to put in new drainage and

[1:39:51] everything else.

[1:39:53] When we saw Fred doing this last year,

[1:39:55] also

[1:39:56] his property was also getting eroded. So

[1:40:00] >> [snorts]

[1:40:01] >> as a person who lives on the street,

[1:40:03] walks on the street, um

[1:40:06] I just want to say is is that

[1:40:10] the structure in itself

[1:40:13] if someone had actually not told told me

[1:40:16] that it was

[1:40:18] like 24 in

[1:40:20] out of compliance, you'd never know the

[1:40:22] difference.

[1:40:24] So I agree. I mean, laws are there for a

[1:40:27] reason. But there's also compassion.

[1:40:31] Making him now tear the whole structure

[1:40:33] down or modify it. I mean, we've all

[1:40:37] spent substantial amount of money.

[1:40:42] Between, I would say, each individual

[1:40:45] between about 50 to about 120,000

[1:40:49] dollars

[1:40:50] just

[1:40:52] on retaining walls because of and it is

[1:40:56] a steep slope.

[1:40:58] >> Mr. Bond, can you can you tell me where

[1:41:00] you lived in Lord of the Rings?

[1:41:01] >> Oh, absolutely. Uh

[1:41:06] Well

[1:41:06] >> And it's what I had.

[1:41:09] Yeah.

[1:41:10] That's

[1:41:10] >> [snorts]

[1:41:11] >> me.

[1:41:11] Yes, very much.

[1:41:14] Yes, sir.

[1:41:15] >> Okay.

[1:41:16] >> So

[1:41:18] we we do have a very steep mountain side

[1:41:22] and we and we have had a lot of trouble,

[1:41:26] especially post-Elaine, with erosion and

[1:41:30] drainage. So, yes.

[1:41:34] He probably did break the law, but I

[1:41:36] really do believe that we should also be

[1:41:39] in the business of compassion.

[1:41:42] >> Thank you.

[1:41:43] >> And, thank you for your time.

[1:41:44] >> Thank you. Any board member want to ask

[1:41:46] any questions?

[1:41:49] » Thank you.

[1:41:49] >> Thank Thank you very much.

[1:41:52] Um

[1:41:53] Mr. Seretti, do you want to Anybody else

[1:41:55] you want to call as a witness or

[1:41:57] anything else you want to say?

[1:41:59] >> No, that's it from my standpoint. That's

[1:42:01] it.

[1:42:02] >> Okay.

[1:42:03] All right.

[1:42:05] Um

[1:42:06] Fellow board members, you ready to start

[1:42:08] working on findings of fact?

[1:42:12] The applicant is Fred and Sandy Seretti.

[1:42:15] The owner of the property in question is

[1:42:18] uh Mr. Seretti, I noticed the name on

[1:42:21] your deed is Alfred Seretti and Sandra

[1:42:23] Seretti. You mind if we use the proper

[1:42:25] name?

[1:42:26] >> Sure.

[1:42:28] » The address of the property in question

[1:42:30] is 369 Terry Acre Circle

[1:42:34] in Blowing Rock, North Carolina.

[1:42:39] It's uh the property is also identified

[1:42:41] by Watauga County PIN number 2817

[1:42:46] -43-7159-000.

[1:42:50] The property is zoned R-15.

[1:42:53] And

[1:42:55] the applicant wants the following.

[1:43:04] The applicant has built an accessory

[1:43:06] building, which the applicants call a

[1:43:07] shed, on the western side of their

[1:43:09] property. The dimensions of the

[1:43:11] accessory building are 11 ft 8 in wide

[1:43:14] by 13 ft 8 in long. 8 in long. The

[1:43:17] building is built with a portion of the

[1:43:19] building encroaching into the 12-ft side

[1:43:21] setback required by Blowing Rock Land

[1:43:23] Use Ordinance section 16-12.4.

[1:43:27] No construction is allowed inside the

[1:43:29] 12-ft side lot setback.

[1:43:33] The amount of the encroachment

[1:43:36] is 25 and 1/2 inches on plane eight

[1:43:41] and 1/2 inches.

[1:43:45] And the applicants are seeking a

[1:43:47] variance of

[1:43:49] Mr. Seretti, would you like to change

[1:43:51] your application to

[1:43:53] um

[1:43:55] 30 inches instead of the two feet you

[1:43:57] were asking?

[1:43:59] I don't know.

[1:44:00] I don't think it's going to make a whole

[1:44:01] lot of difference, but

[1:44:04] I'm not going to debate.

[1:44:06] >> Um

[1:44:07] a few inches, I don't think it's

[1:44:08] >> All right, let's leave it the way it is.

[1:44:10] >> make anything to the decision of the

[1:44:11] land.

[1:44:12] >> The applicants are seeking a variance of

[1:44:14] two feet from the required 12-foot side

[1:44:16] setback

[1:44:17] after the accessory building has already

[1:44:20] been built.

[1:44:26] Um

[1:44:27] Other witnesses in the case

[1:44:31] were H. E. Chaney Withers, a civil

[1:44:34] engineer and friend of the Serettis.

[1:44:39] And his address is 6116 Oxford Chart

[1:44:41] Court in Raleigh, North Carolina, 27606.

[1:44:48] Other witness

[1:44:51] was Mr. um

[1:44:54] Constantine Said Khan at 277 Terry Acres

[1:44:58] Circle, Boring Road.

[1:45:03] There are no other parties

[1:45:06] who stand in to come into this case.

[1:45:09] The applicant did provide drawings or

[1:45:11] sketches or plans.

[1:45:15] The town of Boring Road has provided

[1:45:18] given all necessary legal notices of

[1:45:20] this case and this hearing.

[1:45:22] There was not proper notice.

[1:45:24] There was proper notice of this case in

[1:45:27] here and given to all property owners of

[1:45:29] property abutting the parcel of land

[1:45:31] which is at issue here and proper notice

[1:45:33] was given to any other persons entitled

[1:45:36] to receive notice.

[1:45:37] 14 notices were mailed out.

[1:45:45] The applicant did receive a copy of the

[1:45:47] planning director's staff report prior

[1:45:50] to the hearing.

[1:45:58] What the applicant is proposing would

[1:46:00] not

[1:46:02] Yes, what the applicant is proposing

[1:46:04] would not impair emergency vehicles such

[1:46:06] as fire trucks and ambulances. What the

[1:46:08] applicant is proposing

[1:46:10] would not create a fire hazard. What the

[1:46:12] applicant is proposing would not block

[1:46:14] or impede visibility on any street or

[1:46:16] highway.

[1:46:20] Unique features of this property include

[1:46:23] none.

[1:46:24] There are none.

[1:46:40] Um

[1:46:42] >> [snorts]

[1:46:45] » The structure requires

[1:46:49] a zoning permit.

[1:47:05] A property owner who wants to build a

[1:47:06] structure like this, accessory building

[1:47:08] is required to obtain the necessary

[1:47:11] permit before any work or construction

[1:47:13] is started.

[1:47:18] » [snorts]

[1:47:28] » When completed, the accessory building

[1:47:30] encroached into the 12-ft western side

[1:47:33] setback

[1:47:34] by 28 and 1/2 in.

[1:47:42] That number

[1:47:46] includes

[1:47:49] um

[1:47:52] an eave

[1:47:54] at the top.

[1:48:07] There was a place on the lot

[1:48:09] There were There were places

[1:48:14] on the lot where this accessory building

[1:48:16] could have been built without

[1:48:17] encroaching into any of the setbacks and

[1:48:20] without needing a variance.

[1:48:33] Um zoning enforcement officer

[1:48:36] Excuse me.

[1:48:40] Planning Director

[1:48:42] Kevin Rothrock went to the Seretti

[1:48:45] property for the best possible building

[1:48:47] work without a permit in March

[1:48:52] 2026.

[1:49:08] » [snorts]

[1:49:09] >> Um

[1:49:18] Later,

[1:49:19] Mr. Ceretti

[1:49:25] came to the

[1:49:27] planning

[1:49:30] and inspections

[1:49:33] office

[1:49:38] in person

[1:49:44] and was told

[1:49:47] the accessory building

[1:49:55] he wanted to build

[1:50:02] would encroach

[1:50:08] into the

[1:50:10] 12-ft

[1:50:14] setback.

[1:50:19] And

[1:50:22] it could not

[1:50:25] legally

[1:50:27] be built as planned.

[1:50:43] Mr. Ceretti applied

[1:50:45] for a permit

[1:50:52] and provided

[1:50:56] a site plan

[1:51:02] which showed

[1:51:06] the accessory building

[1:51:12] located

[1:51:16] outside

[1:51:20] side setback.

[1:51:28] And within

[1:51:34] design requirements.

[1:51:45] He applied for a permit on April 6,

[1:51:47] 2026.

[1:52:04] » [snorts]

[1:52:08] » The permit was issued to Mr. Sready

[1:52:13] on June 24th, 2026.

[1:52:21] Mr. Sready did build

[1:52:24] and complete the accessory building.

[1:52:29] And

[1:52:34] he built it

[1:52:39] encroaching

[1:52:41] into

[1:52:43] the 12-ft

[1:52:46] side setback

[1:52:50] knowing

[1:52:56] » [snorts]

[1:53:25] » Does anyone remember want to add any

[1:53:27] facts or want me to change any facts?

[1:53:33] » I don't know. I

[1:53:34] move that we adopt the facts as TV just

[1:53:37] stated them.

[1:53:38] >> Okay.

[1:53:39] >> I'll second the motion.

[1:53:42] >> [snorts]

[1:53:42] >> Um

[1:53:44] any further discussion on facts?

[1:53:46] >> No.

[1:53:48] >> Okay.

[1:53:49] All right.

[1:53:50] All those in favor of adopting the

[1:53:52] findings of facts as I have just

[1:53:55] spoken them, say I.

[1:53:57] >> I.

[1:53:59] It's unanimous.

[1:54:08] I move that

[1:54:13] we adopt the findings of fact.

[1:54:19] Well, let's go back

[1:54:20] >> We just did that.

[1:54:22] >> Thank you. I'm

[1:54:23] thinking about the conclusion.

[1:54:24] >> did this part.

[1:54:25] >> We did.

[1:54:26] Thank you.

[1:54:27] Um

[1:54:29] and the board adopted the

[1:54:31] findings of fact by a unanimous vote.

[1:54:34] >> Yeah.

[1:54:34] >> We move now to conclusions of law

[1:54:37] based upon the evidence presented in the

[1:54:39] facts shown above.

[1:54:42] The Board of Adjustment

[1:54:45] does or does not

[1:54:47] Let's pick that one.

[1:54:49] >> [snorts]

[1:54:53] » Find substantial material and competent

[1:54:55] evidence exists to conclude that in this

[1:54:57] case unnecessary hardship would result

[1:54:59] from the strict application of the

[1:55:01] regulations,

[1:55:02] it shall not be necessary to demonstrate

[1:55:04] that in the absence of the variance, no

[1:55:07] reasonable use can be made of this of

[1:55:10] the property.

[1:55:11] Um I make the motion

[1:55:15] that we either um

[1:55:17] find he has met his burden or we do not.

[1:55:20] Is there a second?

[1:55:22] >> And can I repeat the motion, please?

[1:55:24] >> Sure.

[1:55:24] >> I'd make the motion that we do not find

[1:55:27] substantial material and competent

[1:55:29] evidence exists to conclude that in this

[1:55:30] case unnecessary hardship would result

[1:55:32] from the strict application of the

[1:55:33] regulations.

[1:55:36] >> Well, we could we could do it we could

[1:55:38] word it that way and then if you think

[1:55:40] he had, you would just vote vote the

[1:55:42] other way.

[1:55:44] Um

[1:55:44] >> Louder.

[1:55:45] Thank you.

[1:55:46] >> Okay.

[1:55:47] >> If you disagree with my motion, you can

[1:55:48] just vote no.

[1:55:51] » But I like the idea we either vote

[1:55:53] yes he did or no he didn't.

[1:55:56] Okay. Is that okay? That's what I want

[1:55:58] to do.

[1:55:59] I think probably did not do it

[1:56:00] correctly.

[1:56:03] Please.

[1:56:05] So my motion is

[1:56:06] um

[1:56:07] that we take a vote and find that you

[1:56:10] vote your choices would be he met his

[1:56:12] burden

[1:56:14] and he has complied with factor one or

[1:56:16] he has not. He has or he has not.

[1:56:22] What do you think? Am I getting too

[1:56:24] >> I don't know how you vote on that.

[1:56:27] It's a yay or nay, so

[1:56:28] >> Mr. Chairman, for purposes of our

[1:56:30] record, it would be appropriate to take

[1:56:31] a finding of or a finding as to whether

[1:56:34] he the there is or is not

[1:56:37] uh

[1:56:38] material and competent evidence as to

[1:56:40] the unnecessary hardship. So you can

[1:56:42] certainly vote in favor of whatever the

[1:56:45] proposed finding is and if that fails,

[1:56:47] then take an alternative motion.

[1:56:49] >> Okay. That

[1:56:49] >> And that would be the better approach in

[1:56:51] my in my opinion and my objective.

[1:56:53] >> Okay, that's what we've been doing in

[1:56:54] the past.

[1:56:56] For some reason I decided to get

[1:56:57] creative.

[1:56:59] Um

[1:57:01] Second.

[1:57:03] In the past I've I've always

[1:57:05] made the motion to say we find that he

[1:57:08] has met his burden.

[1:57:10] And

[1:57:12] so you would if you find that he has met

[1:57:14] his burden, you would say yay.

[1:57:17] And if you disagree and think he hasn't

[1:57:20] met his burden, you'd say nay.

[1:57:22] Everybody

[1:57:24] with me?

[1:57:24] >> Yeah.

[1:57:25] >> Okay. So let me do it again.

[1:57:27] Based upon the evidence presented and

[1:57:28] the facts shown above, the Board of

[1:57:30] Adjustment

[1:57:31] does find

[1:57:33] substantial material competent evidence

[1:57:35] exists to conclude that in this case

[1:57:37] unnecessary hardship would result from

[1:57:39] the strict application of the

[1:57:41] regulations. It shall not be necessary

[1:57:43] to demonstrate that in the absence of

[1:57:45] the variance, no reasonable use can be

[1:57:47] made of the property.

[1:57:49] Is there a second?

[1:57:51] >> Second.

[1:57:51] >> All right. Mr. Walker seconds. Any

[1:57:54] further discussion?

[1:57:56] All right.

[1:57:57] All those uh

[1:58:01] in favor of finding that he has met his

[1:58:03] burden and has satisfied satisfied

[1:58:05] factor one,

[1:58:06] vote

[1:58:08] yay.

[1:58:10] All those who find he has not met his

[1:58:12] burden and satisfied factor one, vote

[1:58:14] nay.

[1:58:15] >> Nay.

[1:58:16] >> So Mr.

[1:58:17] >> I said I I'm yay.

[1:58:19] >> You're yay. He has met his burden.

[1:58:21] >> Yes.

[1:58:22] >> Okay.

[1:58:23] >> I'll be a yay, too, then.

[1:58:28] » Okay. So the yays are

[1:58:32] Mr. Gibson

[1:58:36] Mr. McGill

[1:58:39] Yays, he did meet his burden and does

[1:58:41] not satisfy or

[1:58:43] Mr. Shuler

[1:58:47] Mr. Sprague is

[1:58:50] and Mr. Walker. Have I got that right.

[1:58:52] >> Yes.

[1:58:57] » I'm ready to the second.

[1:59:00] Based upon the evidence presented in the

[1:59:01] second factor, based upon the evidence

[1:59:04] presented in the facts shown above, the

[1:59:06] Board of Adjustment

[1:59:08] finds substantial, material, and

[1:59:11] competent evidence exists, including

[1:59:13] that in this case the hardship results

[1:59:15] from conditions that are peculiar to the

[1:59:17] property, such as location, size, or

[1:59:19] topography. Hardships resulting from

[1:59:22] personal circumstances, as well as

[1:59:24] hardships resulting from conditions that

[1:59:26] are common to the neighborhood or

[1:59:28] general public, may not be the basis for

[1:59:30] granting a variance.

[1:59:32] may be granted when necessary

[1:59:34] and appropriate to make reasonable

[1:59:35] accommodation under the Federal Fair

[1:59:37] Housing Act for a person with a

[1:59:38] disability.

[1:59:40] So, the motion is

[1:59:42] um that we find his necessary

[1:59:45] and it's satisfied factor two is our

[1:59:47] second.

[1:59:48] >> Second.

[1:59:49] >> Mr. Walker seconds. Any further

[1:59:51] discussion?

[1:59:52] >> No.

[1:59:53] >> Okay.

[1:59:53] >> [clears throat]

[1:59:54] >> Mr. Chair, the Board of Adjustment

[1:59:56] >> the motion

[1:59:57] >> on each of these factors it's preferred

[1:59:59] that the

[2:00:00] maker of the motion state the facts that

[2:00:03] would support or not support whatever

[2:00:05] your ultimate finding would be.

[2:00:07] Um

[2:00:08] >> We don't

[2:00:09] >> Case law has generally wanted the

[2:00:11] Board not to simply recite the

[2:00:14] element of the variance, but also cite

[2:00:16] to some facts in the evidence that would

[2:00:17] support that finding.

[2:00:18] >> Okay. All right.

[2:00:26] Um

[2:00:27] I've got a question.

[2:00:28] >> Haven't we already done that?

[2:00:30] >> Yes.

[2:00:30] >> We Haven't we already done that? We made

[2:00:32] our findings of fact, which would say

[2:00:34] it'd be the

[2:00:34] >> Yes, sir.

[2:00:35] >> at like an court of appeal it'd be the

[2:00:37] >> Yes.

[2:00:37] >> introduction. And then now we're

[2:00:39] applying the law

[2:00:41] to those facts. Why would we need to

[2:00:43] repeat those facts?

[2:00:45] >> Because the If this is reviewed by a

[2:00:47] court of appeals they will want to know

[2:00:49] specifically what facts the board found

[2:00:51] that swayed them as to

[2:00:53] this for example whether it was a

[2:00:55] peculiarity of the property such as

[2:00:57] location, size, or topography and what

[2:00:59] those facts were.

[2:01:01] >> And make all that part of the motion?

[2:01:03] >> Yes, that would be preferred. Otherwise,

[2:01:05] you run the risk of court remanding it

[2:01:08] back to you for further explanation as

[2:01:10] to why you reached that conclusion.

[2:01:15] » Um

[2:01:22] Okay, let's go back and do line

[2:01:24] um

[2:01:25] factor one again.

[2:01:28] Um

[2:01:35] Mr. Eggers.

[2:01:44] » Come on. Let me take a shot at this.

[2:01:47] Um

[2:01:50] I move that based upon the facts that

[2:01:53] the board just adopted as stated above

[2:01:57] the board of adjustment finds

[2:01:59] substantial material and competent

[2:02:00] evidence exists to conclude that in this

[2:02:02] case unnecessary hardship would result

[2:02:04] from the strict application of

[2:02:05] regulations.

[2:02:08] » Yes, sir. Are there specific factors

[2:02:10] that would allow for unnecessary

[2:02:12] hardship you wish to sign to?

[2:02:14] Well, that motion technically failed

[2:02:17] with the board. So, what would

[2:02:19] >> Well, I just added the word

[2:02:21] in

[2:02:23] Well, I don't understand how we can sit

[2:02:24] here and repeat

[2:02:26] all these facts that we just approved.

[2:02:28] >> Yes, sir.

[2:02:29] >> As part of a motion.

[2:02:31] >> Well, he's he's right. They do They do

[2:02:33] want to see under each conclusion

[2:02:35] um we find or do not find for this

[2:02:39] reason. The problem is

[2:02:44] if I make the motion that we find

[2:02:53] » And then if he states all the facts and

[2:02:54] then we vote against it.

[2:02:56] >> If the board's majority

[2:02:58] conclusion is that the applicant has

[2:03:02] not met his burden of an unnecessary

[2:03:04] hardship, the board can find that while

[2:03:07] it may impose a hardship on the

[2:03:08] applicant to comply with the ordinance,

[2:03:11] it is not an unnecessary hardship for

[2:03:15] whatever specifics you wish

[2:03:17] to find from the evidence.

[2:03:19] >> How about this, Mr. Harris? How about we do a motion

[2:03:24] that he has

[2:03:26] satisfied

[2:03:27] or he has not.

[2:03:30] We take that vote and then

[2:03:35] the winning, in this case the nays,

[2:03:39] then add on

[2:03:42] supporting facts.

[2:03:44] >> Yes, sir. It would It would need to be

[2:03:46] facts that would support a successful

[2:03:48] motion, which is generally what you're

[2:03:49] looking for. However, I will say that if

[2:03:52] a variance, unless a motion carries by

[2:03:55] four at least a four to one vote, then

[2:03:57] that motion that you have

[2:03:59] proposed

[2:04:01] would not pass.

[2:04:02] >> Right. He's He's

[2:04:03] >> here did not pass, then there was not a

[2:04:05] conclusion by the board that

[2:04:08] an unnecessary hardship had been shown.

[2:04:10] >> Could we

[2:04:12] the the factual support is that he produced

[2:04:17] absolutely no evidence

[2:04:19] of unnecessary hardship. So, that that

[2:04:21] statement

[2:04:23] the applicant has produced absolutely no

[2:04:25] evidence of unnecessary hardship.

[2:04:28] Could that come after we took the vote?

[2:04:33] And then add that

[2:04:34] >> Yes, sir. The board would will its

[2:04:36] purview. I would suggested finding that

[2:04:39] the applicant has failed to carry his

[2:04:41] burden as to an unnecessary hardship

[2:04:43] rather than

[2:04:44] a finding that there's no evidence

[2:04:46] produced because the burden is on the

[2:04:48] applicant. It's not

[2:04:50] necessarily

[2:04:51] summary judgment type burden as well.

[2:04:54] Whether he's carried his

[2:04:58] » Well, yes.

[2:04:59] >> You're You're also implying that when

[2:05:01] the motion is made, we already know what

[2:05:03] the outcome's going to be in order to

[2:05:06] include

[2:05:07] the facts that support the outcome in

[2:05:09] the motion.

[2:05:10] >> The maker of the motion needs to propose

[2:05:13] facts to go along with his motion.

[2:05:15] That's what I'm saying.

[2:05:16] >> Okay.

[2:05:17] >> If those facts aren't supported by a

[2:05:19] majority vote, for example, it would

[2:05:21] fail.

[2:05:23] >> And then we'd need to make a new motion

[2:05:25] with new facts.

[2:05:26] >> Something that can be reached

[2:05:28] >> I simplify this discussion of the city.

[2:05:29] I'm not going to appeal it to the city.

[2:05:31] I know that with the city it's You don't

[2:05:32] have to worry about Whatever decision

[2:05:34] that you make, it's going to be based on

[2:05:36] compaction. No other

[2:05:38] decision will stand.

[2:05:39] So, I'm not going to I will declare I

[2:05:41] will not appeal it.

[2:05:42] >> I We appreciate that. We got We got to go to the question now. Okay,

[2:05:47] back to one. We found that the applicant

[2:05:49] has not met his burden. I am now making

[2:05:52] a motion

[2:05:54] that we say

[2:05:57] And we say the reason he has not met met

[2:05:59] his burden is he has

[2:06:02] not provided evidence of unnecessary

[2:06:05] hardship.

[2:06:08] A second motion for number one.

[2:06:14] So, going back to number one, we've

[2:06:16] taken the vote. It's three to two. I now

[2:06:19] make the motion that we say he has not

[2:06:22] met his burden because he has

[2:06:26] not

[2:06:27] produced

[2:06:29] sufficient evidence of unnecessary

[2:06:31] hardship.

[2:06:32] >> And that would be sufficient for

[2:06:34] purposes of that filing.

[2:06:35] >> Yeah, sounds like a tie. All right. So,

[2:06:37] Mr. Walker seconds that.

[2:06:40] Um any further discussion?

[2:06:43] All those in favor of adopting the

[2:06:46] um

[2:06:48] » motion.

[2:06:49] >> The motion

[2:06:51] um say

[2:06:53] uh

[2:06:54] that he has

[2:06:55] not produced sufficient evidence of

[2:06:57] unnecessary hardships.

[2:06:59] Say

[2:07:00] >> I.

[2:07:02] >> This is

[2:07:02] >> [clears throat]

[2:07:03] >> Your name?

[2:07:04] >> I'm a nay.

[2:07:06] >> I I your name?

[2:07:12] » [laughter]

[2:07:12] >> If you think he's met his burden

[2:07:15] I got to have to say he has not. I'm

[2:07:17] sorry.

[2:07:19] So, it's four to one.

[2:07:21] >> Okay. So, well, he's

[2:07:24] but he's still got his vote on

[2:07:27] >> But

[2:07:27] >> I'll just a question. Did or did not?

[2:07:33] Are you going to You had voted that he

[2:07:34] has met his burden. Are you going to

[2:07:36] stick by that?

[2:07:39] Why not?

[2:07:41] >> The motion is that he has not provided

[2:07:43] sufficient evidence of a burden.

[2:07:48] That he has not.

[2:07:51] » Of unnecessary hardship.

[2:07:58] » Yeah.

[2:08:00] >> You think he has not provided sufficient

[2:08:02] evidence of an unnecessary hardship.

[2:08:06] » I would have thought once I thought he

[2:08:07] had.

[2:08:09] Isn't that right?

[2:08:10] Yeah.

[2:08:11] >> You

[2:08:12] >> It was a yay.

[2:08:13] >> Yeah, it was a

[2:08:13] >> You did you you

[2:08:15] >> What are you doing to We still on one?

[2:08:18] We back on one?

[2:08:19] >> We're still on one. We We want to

[2:08:22] um

[2:08:22] connect somehow with the facts.

[2:08:25] >> Yeah.

[2:08:25] >> And so, I'm I'm saying the connection

[2:08:27] with facts is that he just he just

[2:08:29] hasn't produced sufficient evidence

[2:08:32] um

[2:08:33] of unnecessary hardship.

[2:08:37] » Well, I feel sorry for him, but I don't

[2:08:39] think he has. I think he knew

[2:08:41] he needed to keep it within that 12 ft

[2:08:43] and then he slipped over. So, I'm afraid he has not.

[2:08:47] That's just It's frustrating, very

[2:08:49] frustrating. Cuz I think y'all let it I

[2:08:51] think y'all would let it let it go and

[2:08:53] let him have it, but nobody's ever going

[2:08:55] to know, but anyway, this is what we got

[2:08:57] to do, so we got to do it.

[2:08:58] >> Okay.

[2:08:59] >> Yeah.

[2:09:00] >> Um

[2:09:02] that applicant has not provided

[2:09:03] sufficient evidence of unnecessary

[2:09:05] hardship. The vote is

[2:09:07] um

[2:09:08] 4 to 1.

[2:09:10] Mr. Goodson

[2:09:16] voting

[2:09:18] nay.

[2:09:20] He has produced enough.

[2:09:33] Um

[2:09:34] Factor two, based on on the evidence

[2:09:36] presented in the fact sheet above, the

[2:09:38] Board of Adjustment

[2:09:40] finds substantial material competent

[2:09:43] evidence exists to conclude that in this

[2:09:45] case the hardship results from

[2:09:46] conditions that are peculiar to the

[2:09:48] property, such as location, size, or

[2:09:50] topography. Hardships resulting from

[2:09:52] personal circumstances as well as

[2:09:55] hardships resulting from conditions that

[2:09:56] are common to the neighborhood or the

[2:09:58] general public may not be the basis for

[2:10:00] granting a variance.

[2:10:02] may be granted when necessary

[2:10:04] or appropriate to make reasonable

[2:10:05] accommodations under the Federal Fair

[2:10:06] Housing Act for a person with a

[2:10:09] disability.

[2:10:12] Um

[2:10:16] » I'd like to make a motion.

[2:10:19] >> You

[2:10:20] go ahead.

[2:10:20] >> So, I move that based upon the evidence

[2:10:22] presented. The Board of Adjustment does

[2:10:24] not find substantial material and

[2:10:26] competent evidence exists to conclude

[2:10:29] that this case the hardship results from

[2:10:30] conditions that are peculiar to the

[2:10:32] property, such as location, size, or

[2:10:34] topography. The evidence presented did

[2:10:37] not suggest any conditions peculiar to

[2:10:41] this property, including its location,

[2:10:43] size, or topography.

[2:10:45] So, that

[2:10:48] » I second that.

[2:10:49] >> [clears throat and cough]

[2:10:51] » Any further discussion?

[2:10:54] >> No.

[2:10:58] » The evidence produced helped help Mr.

[2:11:00] Walker finish up his sentences.

[2:11:06] The evidence

[2:11:06] >> The evidence produced

[2:11:08] does not

[2:11:13] » I think

[2:11:15] the future motion in English terms.

[2:11:17] >> Please.

[2:11:17] >> Exactly.

[2:11:18] >> I believe the motion as Mr. Walker said

[2:11:21] before

[2:11:22] the Board did not find substantial

[2:11:25] material and competent evidence relates

[2:11:27] to the conditions of the property as the

[2:11:29] evidence did not support

[2:11:32] any condition that would be unique to

[2:11:35] the

[2:11:36] topography, location, or size of the

[2:11:39] property. Is that correct, sir?

[2:11:42] >> Okay.

[2:11:51] Does not show location, size, or

[2:11:53] topography

[2:11:55] um presenting any hardship.

[2:11:58] Fair enough.

[2:12:02] » That would be legally sufficient if

[2:12:03] that's Mr. Walker's motion.

[2:12:05] >> Yes.

[2:12:05] >> Yeah.

[2:12:07] >> Mr. Walker.

[2:12:09] >> I

[2:12:09] >> If as the evidence produced does not

[2:12:11] show location, size, or topography

[2:12:14] presenting any hardship.

[2:12:16] Okay. So, this one the motion is

[2:12:20] that we did not find evidence he did not

[2:12:22] meet his burden.

[2:12:24] All those

[2:12:25] in favor of

[2:12:28] If that's correct, he did not meet his

[2:12:29] burden. He did not satisfy factor two.

[2:12:32] Say I.

[2:12:33] >> I.

[2:12:34] >> Any nays? Are you a nay?

[2:12:36] >> I'm a nay.

[2:12:37] >> I.

[2:12:39] >> So we got

[2:12:41] it's unanimous.

[2:12:43] All I.

[2:12:47] Factor three, based upon the evidence

[2:12:48] presented in the facts shown above, the

[2:12:50] board of adjustment

[2:12:52] does not find substantial, material, or

[2:12:54] competent evidence exists to completely

[2:12:56] in this case the hardship did not result

[2:12:59] from actions taken by the applicant or

[2:13:00] the property owner.

[2:13:02] The act of purchasing the property with

[2:13:04] knowledge of circumstances exist that

[2:13:05] may justify the granting of a variance

[2:13:08] [snorts] or a liability regarding a

[2:13:09] self-created hardship.

[2:13:12] Um the applicant

[2:13:21] knowingly

[2:13:25] constructed

[2:13:29] the accessory building

[2:13:36] with the encroachment

[2:13:42] into

[2:13:45] the 12-ft

[2:13:47] side setback.

[2:13:53] That's the motion that he did not meet

[2:13:55] his burden. Is there a second?

[2:13:56] >> Second.

[2:13:57] from Mr. Shuler.

[2:13:59] Any further discussion?

[2:14:02] All in favor of finding that the

[2:14:03] applicant [snorts] has not met his

[2:14:05] burden on factor three, say I.

[2:14:07] >> I.

[2:14:09] >> Is it unanimous?

[2:14:10] >> It's unanimous.

[2:14:12] >> Fourth factor based upon the evidence

[2:14:14] presented in the fact sheet above the

[2:14:16] Board of Adjustment does not find

[2:14:18] substantial material

[2:14:21] and competent evidence suggests to

[2:14:22] conclude that in this case the requested

[2:14:24] variance is consistent with the spirit,

[2:14:26] purpose, and intent of the regulations.

[2:14:28] Such a public safety and security and

[2:14:30] substantial justice achieved.

[2:14:32] Substantial justice is not achieved

[2:14:35] granting the variance

[2:14:36] would be injurious to the neighborhood

[2:14:38] or to the general

[2:14:40] welfare.

[2:14:42] Um

[2:14:48] building

[2:14:51] the accessory building

[2:14:57] and no way going

[2:15:01] into the side setback.

[2:15:15] Because that would come

[2:15:18] >> [snorts]

[2:15:27] » It's all the encouragement

[2:15:33] was minimal.

[2:15:44] And then

[2:15:49] And it's not

[2:15:52] within the spirit

[2:15:58] and intent of the regulations.

[2:16:01] >> [snorts]

[2:16:08] » Uh is there a second of that motion?

[2:16:12] >> Second.

[2:16:12] >> Mr. Shuler seconds. Any

[2:16:14] >> [clears throat]

[2:16:14] >> further discussion?

[2:16:19] Hearing none.

[2:16:21] Um all those

[2:16:23] in favor of finding that the applicant

[2:16:25] has not met his burden

[2:16:27] that was not substantial material

[2:16:29] competent evidence

[2:16:32] existing to include concluded this case

[2:16:35] the request of variance is consistent

[2:16:37] with the spirit purpose and intent of

[2:16:39] the regulations.

[2:16:41] Um

[2:16:43] associate public safety secures

[2:16:45] substantial justice achieved

[2:16:49] building the accessory building into the

[2:16:51] side setback because the applicant

[2:16:52] thought the encroachment was minimal.

[2:16:55] Um

[2:16:56] and it was not

[2:16:59] and that

[2:17:01] is not within the spirit and intent of

[2:17:02] the regulations.

[2:17:04] I would favor he hadn't met his burden,

[2:17:06] say I.

[2:17:07] >> I.

[2:17:09] I unanimous.

[2:17:11] It's unanimous.

[2:17:17] Um

[2:17:18] >> For this one, I will restate this.

[2:17:21] >> I'm sorry, what?

[2:17:21] >> Oh, okay. For the number five one, I

[2:17:23] would want I move that consistent with

[2:17:26] the conclusions of law just discussed,

[2:17:29] the Board of Adjustment does not grant

[2:17:31] the applicant a variance.

[2:17:33] Period.

[2:17:36] >> That's your motion?

[2:17:37] >> That's my motion.

[2:17:38] >> And I'll second that. Any further

[2:17:40] discussion?

[2:17:42] Um

[2:17:44] All in favor of the motion that we not

[2:17:46] grant a variance, say I.

[2:17:48] >> I.

[2:17:50] >> Mr. Goodson.

[2:17:50] >> Aye.

[2:17:53] Mr. Aye.

[2:17:56] >> Mr. Goodson.

[2:17:59] Say aye.

[2:18:04] All right.

[2:18:11] a deadline

[2:18:13] to be correction of the problem.

[2:18:16] In other words, you got

[2:18:18] you've got to correct this situation

[2:18:20] within what do you think is reasonable?

[2:18:23] 6 months?

[2:18:26] » 6 months?

[2:18:29] What do you think is reasonable?

[2:18:32] » I think 6 months is reasonable. I think

[2:18:34] it should be

[2:18:35] done sooner.

[2:18:37] 6 months.

[2:18:38] >> Well, you got up to that point. Up to

[2:18:40] that point.

[2:18:40] >> I'm going to

[2:18:41] get a higher survey everything and get

[2:18:43] this thing done.

[2:18:45] >> Why?

[2:18:45] >> Cuz I don't want to do this and find out

[2:18:47] we're in breach.

[2:18:48] >> Yes.

[2:18:49] >> Yeah, that's correct.

[2:18:50] >> What do you suggest?

[2:18:51] >> Yes.

[2:18:51] >> Um

[2:18:54] The applicant

[2:18:56] >> Sorry for that.

[2:18:57] >> That's all right.

[2:18:59] >> The applicant

[2:18:59] >> 1 ft 8 in from you.

[2:19:02] >> 1 ft from your neighbor. 1 ft from your

[2:19:04] neighbor.

[2:19:05] Put away. That's how he got me.

[2:19:07] >> Generally what's included in your work

[2:19:09] as far as time to correct the problem is

[2:19:11] something that would be handled through

[2:19:13] staff as an administrative matter.

[2:19:15] >> Yeah, but

[2:19:21] the town ordinances give us all the

[2:19:23] authority and power of

[2:19:25] the administrator.

[2:19:26] >> And yes, but that's where I get it.

[2:19:28] >> So, if we're going to go ahead and do

[2:19:30] >> [laughter]

[2:19:30] >> So, we're going to go to

[2:19:31] >> That's That's generally where that gets

[2:19:33] basically wrapped up. There's additional

[2:19:35] time, however, since the board is

[2:19:37] hearing

[2:19:38] the matter, the board can impose those

[2:19:41] conditions and give staff direction if

[2:19:43] you choose to do so.

[2:19:44] >> Thank you.

[2:19:45] >> Which is the second part of my

[2:19:47] presentation.

[2:19:48] >> I'm not going to write that down, but

[2:19:49] thank you.

[2:19:50] The applicant

[2:19:52] must remove

[2:19:54] um

[2:20:01] » all

[2:20:03] of the

[2:20:09] constructed

[2:20:13] accessory building

[2:20:17] that

[2:20:20] encroaches

[2:20:23] into the

[2:20:25] >> [clears throat]

[2:20:26] >> western

[2:20:29] side setback

[2:20:36] within 180 days

[2:20:41] of the filing

[2:20:46] of this decision.

[2:20:54] This

[2:20:55] I I make the motion that we say that the

[2:20:57] applicant must remove all of the

[2:20:59] constructed accessory building that

[2:21:02] encroaches into the

[2:21:04] western side setback within 100 days 180

[2:21:07] days of the filing

[2:21:09] of this decision.

[2:21:10] Is there a second?

[2:21:11] >> Second.

[2:21:12] >> Mr. Walker seconds. Any further

[2:21:14] discussion?

[2:21:16] All those in favor of adopting

[2:21:19] um

[2:21:21] that term, say I.

[2:21:23] >> I.

[2:21:24] It's unanimous then.

[2:21:28] This decision is effective after review

[2:21:30] and approval of the written decision by

[2:21:32] all participating board members and then

[2:21:34] filing with the clerk, which means I

[2:21:36] will type it up. I'll share it with all

[2:21:39] the other board members and if they see

[2:21:40] no errors

[2:21:42] or mistakes in it, um

[2:21:44] they'll tell me and I will tell the

[2:21:46] clerk that she can proceed with filing.

[2:21:48] Um

[2:21:49] I I make a motion that the board adopt

[2:21:53] the conclusions of law that we have just

[2:21:55] articulated.

[2:21:56] Uh is there a second?

[2:21:58] >> Second.

[2:21:59] >> Seconded by Mr. Walker. Any further

[2:22:00] discussion?

[2:22:02] Uh all those in favor of adopting the

[2:22:05] conclusions of law

[2:22:07] just stated, say I.

[2:22:09] >> I.

[2:22:10] That's unanimous.

[2:22:14] And

[2:22:16] I now make a motion that we conclude

[2:22:18] this meeting of the

[2:22:20] Glowing Rock Board of Adjustment. Is

[2:22:22] there a second?

[2:22:23] >> Second.

[2:22:23] >> It's been moved and seconded. All those

[2:22:25] in favor of ending this meeting, say I.

[2:22:27] >> I.

[2:22:28] It's unanimous.

Board of Adjustment - Thursday, July 30th, 2026

Transcript